Maritza P. v. Devereux Foundation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maritza P. v. Devereux Foundation

2017 NY Slip Op 2945, 149 A.D.3d 554, 50 N.Y.S.3d 268

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

DecidedApril 18, 2017

Docket3762 101423/10

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2945 (Maritza P. v. Devereux Foundation) 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

Maritza P. v. Devereux Foundation, 2017 NY Slip Op 2945, 149 A.D.3d 554, 50 N.Y.S.3d 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants having satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In satisfaction of their burden, plaintiffs offered competent proof in the form of deposition testimony, medical records and police records, which raised triable issues (see generally N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247 [2002]; Kelly G. v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 99 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants having satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In satisfaction of their burden, plaintiffs offered competent proof in the form of deposition testimony, medical records and police records, which raised triable issues (see generally N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247 [2002]; Kelly G. v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 99 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2945, 149 A.D.3d 554, 50 N.Y.S.3d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maritza-p-v-devereux-foundation-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack