Komonaj v. Curanovic
This text of 90 A.D.3d 505 (Komonaj v. Curanovic) 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.
Opinion
The infant plaintiffs allegedly suffered injuries as a result of exposure to lead-based paint in their apartment in the building owned by the corporate defendant. Supreme Court properly denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the individual defendants, who are officers and employees of the corporate defendant. In moving for summary judgment, the individual defendants failed to present evidence that, if uncontroverted, would have established that they did not personally participate in malfeasance or misfeasance constituting an affirmative tortious act (see Peguero v 601 Realty Corp., 58 AD3d 556, 558-559 [2009]; Espinosa v Rand, 24 AD3d 102, 102 [2005]). In the absence of such evidence, the individual defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and this failure required the denial of their summary judgment motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]).
We have considered the individual defendants’ remaining [506]*506contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 A.D.3d 505, 934 N.Y.2d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/komonaj-v-curanovic-nyappdiv-2011.