Hujus v. V. Paulius & Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hujus v. V. Paulius & Associates

38 A.D.3d 716, 833 N.Y.S.2d 538

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 716 (Hujus v. V. Paulius & Associates) 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

Hujus v. V. Paulius & Associates, 38 A.D.3d 716, 833 N.Y.S.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated June 21, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendant Martin-Brower Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, (2) a judgment of the same court entered July 29, 2005, upon the order, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court dated October 5, 2005, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Martin-Brower Co.

Ordered that the appeals from the order and the judgment are dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Martin-Brower Co.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The appeal from the judgment must be dismissed as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment.

After the defendant Martin-Brower Co. (hereinafter the defendant) established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Krausman and Dillon, 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 (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated June 21, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendant Martin-Brower Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, (2) a judgment of the same court entered July 29, 2005, upon the order, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court dated October 5, 2005, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Martin-Brower Co.

Ordered that the appeals from the order and the judgment are dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Martin-Brower Co.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The appeal from the judgment must be dismissed as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment.

After the defendant Martin-Brower Co. (hereinafter the defendant) established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 716, 833 N.Y.S.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hujus-v-v-paulius-associates-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack