Piurek v. Massaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piurek v. Massaro

305 A.D.2d 389, 758 N.Y.S.2d 522

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

DecidedMay 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 389 (Piurek v. Massaro) 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

Piurek v. Massaro, 305 A.D.2d 389, 758 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered April 4, 2002, as, upon an order of the same court, dated February 8, 2002, granting the separate motions of the defendants Gregory Massaro and Dan Duffy for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, is in favor of the respondents and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

[390]*390The Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions of the defendants Gregory Massaro and Dan Duffy for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Those defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered April 4, 2002, as, upon an order of the same court, dated February 8, 2002, granting the separate motions of the defendants Gregory Massaro and Dan Duffy for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, is in favor of the respondents and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

[390]*390The Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions of the defendants Gregory Massaro and Dan Duffy for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Those defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 389, 758 N.Y.S.2d 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piurek-v-massaro-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack