Reid v. Frierson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Frierson

73 A.D.3d 727, 899 N.Y.S.2d 665

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

DecidedMay 4, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 727 (Reid v. Frierson) 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

Reid v. Frierson, 73 A.D.3d 727, 899 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated July 29, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment shortly after issue was joined and before any disclosure took place. The Supreme Court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. This appeal ensued, and we affirm. The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitle[728]*728ment to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposing papers (id. at 324). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated July 29, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment shortly after issue was joined and before any disclosure took place. The Supreme Court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. This appeal ensued, and we affirm. The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitle[728]*728ment to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposing papers (id. at 324). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 727, 899 N.Y.S.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-frierson-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack