Passaro v. Bouquio

79 A.D.3d 1114, 914 N.Y.S.2d 905

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated June 11, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the apparatus the plaintiff was using was not defective and that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her accident (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]; Slattery v O’Shea, 46 AD3d [1115]*1115669 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.E, Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Passaro v. Bouquio, 79 A.D.3d 1114, 914 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

79 A.D.3d 1114 (Passaro v. Bouquio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Slattery v. O'Shea
46 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)