Ramphal v. Zandalasini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramphal v. Zandalasini

12 A.D.3d 493, 784 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13705

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 493 (Ramphal v. Zandalasini) 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

Ramphal v. Zandalasini, 12 A.D.3d 493, 784 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants George Zandalasini and Karen Carey appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated October 8, 2003, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the defendants Andrew Hendry and Gertrude Hendry separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). They argued that the construction performed by the third-party defendant, Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc., was the sole proximate cause of [494]*494the plaintiff Rajesh Ramphal’s injuries and therefore, they could not be held liable for those injuries. However, they failed to submit sufficient evidence to support this claim. Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, 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 defendants George Zandalasini and Karen Carey appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated October 8, 2003, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the defendants Andrew Hendry and Gertrude Hendry separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). They argued that the construction performed by the third-party defendant, Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc., was the sole proximate cause of [494]*494the plaintiff Rajesh Ramphal’s injuries and therefore, they could not be held liable for those injuries. However, they failed to submit sufficient evidence to support this claim. Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 493, 784 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramphal-v-zandalasini-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack