Ray v. Brooklyn Union Gas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ray v. Brooklyn Union Gas

304 A.D.2d 738, 757 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312

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

DecidedApril 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 738 (Ray v. Brooklyn Union Gas) 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

Ray v. Brooklyn Union Gas, 304 A.D.2d 738, 757 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and property damage, etc., the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 29, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against Brooklyn Union Gas, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it. There are no triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether negligence on its part was a proximate cause of the fire (see Farrah v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 248 AD2d 584 [1998]). Where, as here, the moving party establishes that it is entitled to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact by admissible evidence, not mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The plaintiffs failed to do so. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Townes, 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 wrongful death and property damage, etc., the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 29, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against Brooklyn Union Gas, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it. There are no triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether negligence on its part was a proximate cause of the fire (see Farrah v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 248 AD2d 584 [1998]). Where, as here, the moving party establishes that it is entitled to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact by admissible evidence, not mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The plaintiffs failed to do so. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 738, 757 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-brooklyn-union-gas-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack