Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

272 A.D.2d 585, 709 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6049

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 30, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered July 16, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint based upon lack of notice, the defendant is required to make a prima facie showing establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436, 437; Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294, 295). In the instant case, the defendant met that burden. The expert affidavit offered in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was based on conclusory findings and was therefore insufficient to defeat it (see, Solow v Liebman, 262 AD2d 633). Mengano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered July 16, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint based upon lack of notice, the defendant is required to make a prima facie showing establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436, 437; Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294, 295). In the instant case, the defendant met that burden. The expert affidavit offered in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was based on conclusory findings and was therefore insufficient to defeat it (see, Solow v Liebman, 262 AD2d 633). Mengano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 272 A.D.2d 585, 709 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 585 (Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related