Elnakib v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elnakib v. County of Suffolk

40 A.D.3d 806, 834 N.Y.S.2d 472

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 806 (Elnakib v. County of Suffolk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elnakib v. County of Suffolk, 40 A.D.3d 806, 834 N.Y.S.2d 472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J), dated May 16, 2006, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and [807]*807the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see generally Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J), dated May 16, 2006, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and [807]*807the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see generally Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 806, 834 N.Y.S.2d 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elnakib-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack