Lefferts v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lefferts v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

16 A.D.3d 628, 791 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3306

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 628 (Lefferts v. Federated Department Stores, 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

Lefferts v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 628, 791 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant MG Concepts appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 24, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

In light of the differences between the deposition testimony of the witness produced on behalf of the appellant and the conclusory assertions later made by this witness in support of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and in light of all the other circumstances presented, the appellant failed to meet its burden of showing the absence of any triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant MG Concepts appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 24, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

In light of the differences between the deposition testimony of the witness produced on behalf of the appellant and the conclusory assertions later made by this witness in support of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and in light of all the other circumstances presented, the appellant failed to meet its burden of showing the absence of any triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 628, 791 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefferts-v-federated-department-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack