Palisi v. Barrett Heating & Air Conditioning Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palisi v. Barrett Heating & Air Conditioning Co.

1 A.D.2d 337, 766 N.Y.S.2d 593

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 337 (Palisi v. Barrett Heating & Air Conditioning 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

Palisi v. Barrett Heating & Air Conditioning Co., 1 A.D.2d 337, 766 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated September 24, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[338]*338Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is well settled that the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they were not negligent. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Krausman, J.E, McGinity, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated September 24, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[338]*338Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is well settled that the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they were not negligent. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Krausman, J.E, McGinity, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 337, 766 N.Y.S.2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palisi-v-barrett-heating-air-conditioning-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack