Persaud v. Sooklall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Persaud v. Sooklall

83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 532

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

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1028 (Persaud v. Sooklall) 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

Persaud v. Sooklall, 83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant UL Electrical Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weinstein, J.), entered April 8, 2010, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[1029]*1029Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant UL Electrical Corp. failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. It did not tender “sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied UL Electrical Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Cohen, 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, etc., the defendant UL Electrical Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weinstein, J.), entered April 8, 2010, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[1029]*1029Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant UL Electrical Corp. failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. It did not tender “sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied UL Electrical Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/persaud-v-sooklall-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack