Gadayeva v. Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gadayeva v. Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc.

286 A.D.2d 415, 729 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8113

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

DecidedAugust 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 415 (Gadayeva v. Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc.) 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

Gadayeva v. Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc., 286 A.D.2d 415, 729 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated June 23, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as it failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Gladstone v Burger King Corp., 261 AD2d 357; Goldman v [416]*416Waldbaum, 248 AD2d 436). The order must therefore be reversed and the motion denied. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated June 23, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as it failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Gladstone v Burger King Corp., 261 AD2d 357; Goldman v [416]*416Waldbaum, 248 AD2d 436). The order must therefore be reversed and the motion denied. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 415, 729 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gadayeva-v-dans-supreme-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack