Gordon v. General Electric Co.

234 A.D.2d 418, 651 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055

Opinion

—In a products liability action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered August 21, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The law is well settled that where, as here, a defendant [419] meets its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to "produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Reyes v Rentar Dev., 207 AD2d 336; Smith v Cafiero, 203 AD2d 355). The plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Gordon v. General Electric Co., 234 A.D.2d 418, 651 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

234 A.D.2d 418 (Gordon v. General Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Smith v. Cafiero
203 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Reyes v. Rentar Development
207 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)