LaManna v. Sudbury, Inc.
Opinion
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. “[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Defendants failed to make the required showing (see, Gardner v Honda Motor Co., 214 AD2d 1024). Because defendants did not meet their initial burden in moving for summary judg[995] ment, it is not necessary to consider the adequacy of plaintiffs opposing papers (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
244 A.D.2d 994 (LaManna v. Sudbury, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.