Pellegrino v. A.C. & S., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pellegrino v. A.C. & S., Inc.

15 A.D.3d 377, 789 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1411

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Bell & Gossett Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Bell & Gossett Company (hereinafter B & G) established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with competent evidence that the products it manufactured, to which the plaintiff was exposed, did not contain asbestos, and therefore could not have contributed to the cause of the plaintiffs injury (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 216 AD2d 79 [1995]). Since the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the motion of B & G for summary judgment was properly granted and the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against it (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Bell & Gossett Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Bell & Gossett Company (hereinafter B & G) established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with competent evidence that the products it manufactured, to which the plaintiff was exposed, did not contain asbestos, and therefore could not have contributed to the cause of the plaintiffs injury (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 216 AD2d 79 [1995]). Since the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the motion of B & G for summary judgment was properly granted and the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against it (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Pellegrino v. A.C. & S., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 377, 789 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

15 A.D.3d 377 (Pellegrino v. A.C. & S., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related