Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.

199 A.D.2d 310, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1010

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 310 (Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.) 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

Krygier v. Airweld, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 310, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, the defendant New York Blood Center, Inc., and Greater New York Blood Program, a Division of New York Blood Center, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated February 13, 1991, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in negligence.

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

It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish the cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court to direct judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, Bush v St. Clare’s Hosp., 82 NY2d 738). Under the circumstances of this case, issues regarding the adequacy of screening procedures employed by [311]*311the appellant in the examination of prospective blood donors present triable questions of fact. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action, the defendant New York Blood Center, Inc., and Greater New York Blood Program, a Division of New York Blood Center, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated February 13, 1991, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in negligence.

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

It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish the cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court to direct judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, Bush v St. Clare’s Hosp., 82 NY2d 738). Under the circumstances of this case, issues regarding the adequacy of screening procedures employed by [311]*311the appellant in the examination of prospective blood donors present triable questions of fact. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 310, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krygier-v-airweld-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack