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

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 585 (Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 585, 709 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack