Posadas v. Harmany Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Posadas v. Harmany Construction Co.

4 A.D.3d 350, 770 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1043

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 350 (Posadas v. Harmany Construction Co.) 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

Posadas v. Harmany Construction Co., 4 A.D.3d 350, 770 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 9, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Papitto Construction Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Smith and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 9, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Papitto Construction Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Smith and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 350, 770 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posadas-v-harmany-construction-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack