Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority

277 A.D.2d 355, 716 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12063

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 6, 1999, as denied its motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that on a motion for summary judgment, the movant is required to set forth evidence establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A failure to do so requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Guck v Palozzi, 269 AD2d 777; cf., Pamas v Dickson, 267 AD2d 219). Given the appellant’s failure of proof, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 6, 1999, as denied its motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that on a motion for summary judgment, the movant is required to set forth evidence establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A failure to do so requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Guck v Palozzi, 269 AD2d 777; cf., Pamas v Dickson, 267 AD2d 219). Given the appellant’s failure of proof, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority, 277 A.D.2d 355, 716 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 355 (Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related