Gonzalez v. Lombardino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Lombardino

301 A.D.2d 437, 752 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 502

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 437 (Gonzalez v. Lombardino) 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

Gonzalez v. Lombardino, 301 A.D.2d 437, 752 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 18, 2001, insofar as appealable, which denied defendants’ motions to renew a prior order of the same court and Justice, entered April 12, 2001, which granted plaintiff summary judgment on [438]*438the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motions granted and, upon renewal, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability denied and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

This legal malpractice action is based upon defendants’ failure to timely commence a personal injury action arising from plaintiff’s fall down the stairs of an elevated subway station in the Bronx, allegedly “due to the lack of lighting of any kind.” Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of her motion for summary judgment, wherein she stated, “It is my belief that but for the failure of the defendants * * * I would have been able to prevail * * * and would have received a verdict in my favor if I had gone to trial” was purely conclusory. Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the question of the sufficiency of the opposition to raise a triable issue of fact was never triggered. We have considered plaintiff-respondent’s points regarding alleged procedural and appealability issues and find no procedural or jurisdictional bar to the present relief. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 18, 2001, insofar as appealable, which denied defendants’ motions to renew a prior order of the same court and Justice, entered April 12, 2001, which granted plaintiff summary judgment on [438]*438the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motions granted and, upon renewal, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability denied and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

This legal malpractice action is based upon defendants’ failure to timely commence a personal injury action arising from plaintiff’s fall down the stairs of an elevated subway station in the Bronx, allegedly “due to the lack of lighting of any kind.” Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of her motion for summary judgment, wherein she stated, “It is my belief that but for the failure of the defendants * * * I would have been able to prevail * * * and would have received a verdict in my favor if I had gone to trial” was purely conclusory. Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the question of the sufficiency of the opposition to raise a triable issue of fact was never triggered. We have considered plaintiff-respondent’s points regarding alleged procedural and appealability issues and find no procedural or jurisdictional bar to the present relief. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 437, 752 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-lombardino-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack