Laurent v. Logan Bus Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laurent v. Logan Bus Co.

215 A.D.2d 730, 627 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5761

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

DecidedMay 30, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 730 (Laurent v. Logan Bus 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

Laurent v. Logan Bus Co., 215 A.D.2d 730, 627 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants National Car Rental and Robert Lachance appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated January 26, 1994, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The record shows that there was nothing more than surmise and speculation to defeat the appellants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. Such a showing is insufficient, and the court should have granted their motion [731]*731(see, e.g., Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants National Car Rental and Robert Lachance appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated January 26, 1994, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The record shows that there was nothing more than surmise and speculation to defeat the appellants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. Such a showing is insufficient, and the court should have granted their motion [731]*731(see, e.g., Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 730, 627 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurent-v-logan-bus-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack