Johnson v. Lancet 150 Nassau LP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Lancet 150 Nassau LP

208 A.D.2d 463, 617 N.Y.S.2d 743

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 463 (Johnson v. Lancet 150 Nassau LP) 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

Johnson v. Lancet 150 Nassau LP, 208 A.D.2d 463, 617 N.Y.S.2d 743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1994, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Material issues of fact concerning the nature of appellant’s duties as a cleaning service and the proper performance thereof were raised in appellant’s own evidentiary submissions in support of the motion, including plaintiff’s sworn testimony that a defect on the step on which she fell was concealed by dirt, appellant’s employee’s testimony that appellant did not clean the stairs, and contract documents indicating that appel[464]*464lant was supposed to clean the stairs. "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case * * *. Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1994, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Material issues of fact concerning the nature of appellant’s duties as a cleaning service and the proper performance thereof were raised in appellant’s own evidentiary submissions in support of the motion, including plaintiff’s sworn testimony that a defect on the step on which she fell was concealed by dirt, appellant’s employee’s testimony that appellant did not clean the stairs, and contract documents indicating that appel[464]*464lant was supposed to clean the stairs. "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case * * *. Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 463, 617 N.Y.S.2d 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-lancet-150-nassau-lp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack