Ricci v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricci v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 6741, 143 A.D.3d 516, 38 N.Y.S.3d 797

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

DecidedOctober 13, 2016

Docket1882 190224/14

StatusPublished

Cited by227 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6741 (Ricci v. A.O. Smith Water Products 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

Ricci v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 6741, 143 A.D.3d 516, 38 N.Y.S.3d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered October 19, 2015, which, in this action arising from plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos resulting in his contracting mesothelioma, denied the motion of defendant

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court applied the correct standard on the summary judgment motion and properly concluded that Cleaver-Brooks failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record demonstrates that in support of its motion, Cleaver-Brooks merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiffs proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why his claims fail (see Koulermos v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered October 19, 2015, which, in this action arising from plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos resulting in his contracting mesothelioma, denied the motion of defendant

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court applied the correct standard on the summary judgment motion and properly concluded that Cleaver-Brooks failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record demonstrates that in support of its motion, Cleaver-Brooks merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiffs proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why his claims fail (see Koulermos v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6741, 143 A.D.3d 516, 38 N.Y.S.3d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricci-v-ao-smith-water-products-co-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack