Granata v. Sub-Zero Freezer Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Granata v. Sub-Zero Freezer Co.

43 A.D.3d 996, 841 N.Y.S.2d 469

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 996 (Granata v. Sub-Zero Freezer Co.) 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

Granata v. Sub-Zero Freezer Co., 43 A.D.3d 996, 841 N.Y.S.2d 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated March 27, 2006, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Sub-Zero Freezer Company, Inc., and Staten Island Appliance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The respondents demonstrated their respective prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Mastro, J.E, Covello, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 12 Misc 3d 1155(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 5090KU) (2006).]

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, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated March 27, 2006, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Sub-Zero Freezer Company, Inc., and Staten Island Appliance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The respondents demonstrated their respective prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Mastro, J.E, Covello, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 12 Misc 3d 1155(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 5090KU) (2006).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 996, 841 N.Y.S.2d 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granata-v-sub-zero-freezer-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack