LaManna v. Sudbury, Inc.

244 A.D.2d 994, 668 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12433
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

LaManna v. Sudbury, Inc., 244 A.D.2d 994, 668 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

244 A.D.2d 994 (LaManna v. Sudbury, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeFazio v. Hage
272 A.D.2d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)