Marquez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marquez v. City of New York

48 A.D.3d 241, 850 N.Y.S.2d 449

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 241 (Marquez v. City of New York) 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

Marquez v. City of New York, 48 A.D.3d 241, 850 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered July 30, 2007, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing this personal injury action based on exposure to secondhand smoke and referred their alternative request for a Frye hearing to the trial court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their initial burden to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment since they failed to offer admissible proof that refuted plaintiffs claim of a causal connection between his bladder cancer and the secondhand smoke (SHS) he allegedly inhaled while incarcerated in city jails between August 1998 and January 2001. In support of their argument that the scientific community has not accepted the proposition that a causal connection exists between bladder cancer and SHS, defendants submitted an affirmation by counsel and an expert’s unsworn statement (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, McGuire and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32320(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered July 30, 2007, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing this personal injury action based on exposure to secondhand smoke and referred their alternative request for a Frye hearing to the trial court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their initial burden to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment since they failed to offer admissible proof that refuted plaintiffs claim of a causal connection between his bladder cancer and the secondhand smoke (SHS) he allegedly inhaled while incarcerated in city jails between August 1998 and January 2001. In support of their argument that the scientific community has not accepted the proposition that a causal connection exists between bladder cancer and SHS, defendants submitted an affirmation by counsel and an expert’s unsworn statement (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, McGuire and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32320(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 241, 850 N.Y.S.2d 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack