Rentz v. Modell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rentz v. Modell

262 A.D.2d 545, 695 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7070

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 545 (Rentz v. Modell) 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

Rentz v. Modell, 262 A.D.2d 545, 695 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant B.H.N.V. Sales Corp., d/b/a Italy Department Store appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated November 9, 1998, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

A proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 defendant B.H.N.V. Sales Corp., d/b/a Italy Department Store appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated November 9, 1998, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

A proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 545, 695 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rentz-v-modell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack