Martynick v. TDX Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martynick v. TDX Construction Corp.

251 A.D.2d 465, 673 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6892

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 465 (Martynick v. TDX Construction Corp.) 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

Martynick v. TDX Construction Corp., 251 A.D.2d 465, 673 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Demurest, J.), dated August 6, 1997, as, upon renewal, adhered to so much of a prior determination of the same court (Vaccaro, J.), dated June 28, 1995, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was not involved in or responsible for either creating or maintaining the ditch where the plaintiff’s accident occurred (see, Zucker[466]*466man v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiff offered nothing but vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Babino v City of New York, 234 AD2d 241; Matter of Kraus, 208 AD2d 729, 730; New York Natl. Bank v Harris, 182 AD2d 680). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Demurest, J.), dated August 6, 1997, as, upon renewal, adhered to so much of a prior determination of the same court (Vaccaro, J.), dated June 28, 1995, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was not involved in or responsible for either creating or maintaining the ditch where the plaintiff’s accident occurred (see, Zucker[466]*466man v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiff offered nothing but vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Babino v City of New York, 234 AD2d 241; Matter of Kraus, 208 AD2d 729, 730; New York Natl. Bank v Harris, 182 AD2d 680). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 465, 673 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martynick-v-tdx-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack