Picart v. Brookhaven Country Day School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Picart v. Brookhaven Country Day School

37 A.D.3d 798, 832 N.Y.S.2d 51

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 798 (Picart v. Brookhaven Country Day School) 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

Picart v. Brookhaven Country Day School, 37 A.D.3d 798, 832 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 3, 2006, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[799]*799The defendants failed to satisfy their burden in the first instance of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). This burden cannot be satisfied merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiff’s case, as the defendants did here (see South v K-Mart Corp., 24 AD3d 748 [2005]; Xu v 688 Sixth Ave. Realty Co., 19 AD3d 687 [2005]; Surdo v Albany Collision Supply, Inc., 8 AD3d 655 [2004]; O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]; Mennerich v Esposito, 4 AD3d 399, 400 [2004]; Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4 AD3d 387, 388-389 [2004]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Dillon and Covello, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 3, 2006, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[799]*799The defendants failed to satisfy their burden in the first instance of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). This burden cannot be satisfied merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiff’s case, as the defendants did here (see South v K-Mart Corp., 24 AD3d 748 [2005]; Xu v 688 Sixth Ave. Realty Co., 19 AD3d 687 [2005]; Surdo v Albany Collision Supply, Inc., 8 AD3d 655 [2004]; O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]; Mennerich v Esposito, 4 AD3d 399, 400 [2004]; Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4 AD3d 387, 388-389 [2004]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 798, 832 N.Y.S.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picart-v-brookhaven-country-day-school-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack