Guzman v. Lundy
This text of 285 A.D.2d 626 (Guzman v. Lundy) 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.
Opinion
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 14, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form that he did not negligently cause the plaintiffs injuries. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish the existence of a genuine, material issue of fact which would require a trial (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). The plaintiff’s deposition testimony submitted in opposition to the motion consisted of nothing more than unsubstantiated and speculative assertions of negligence, and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). [627]*627Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Waingort v Siegel, 278 AD2d 408). Ritter, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
285 A.D.2d 626, 728 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-lundy-nyappdiv-2001.