Rottinger v. Cryo-Dyne Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rottinger v. Cryo-Dyne Corp.

214 A.D.2d 664, 625 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4321

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

DecidedApril 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 664 (Rottinger v. Cryo-Dyne Corp.) 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

Rottinger v. Cryo-Dyne Corp., 214 A.D.2d 664, 625 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for, inter alia, personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated November 30, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted the separate motion of the third-party defendant Minnesota Valley Engineering, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[665]*665The injured plaintiff allegedly aggravated a pre-existing back injury when he attempted to move a certain nitrogen canister during the course of his employment. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant and the third-party defendant Minnesota Valley Engineering, Inc., made prima facie showings that the injured plaintiffs injuries were not causally related to the accident in question and that the canister was not defective. We further agree that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a material issue of fact which requires trial. Summary judgment was thus properly awarded (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, 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, inter alia, personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated November 30, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted the separate motion of the third-party defendant Minnesota Valley Engineering, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[665]*665The injured plaintiff allegedly aggravated a pre-existing back injury when he attempted to move a certain nitrogen canister during the course of his employment. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant and the third-party defendant Minnesota Valley Engineering, Inc., made prima facie showings that the injured plaintiffs injuries were not causally related to the accident in question and that the canister was not defective. We further agree that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a material issue of fact which requires trial. Summary judgment was thus properly awarded (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 664, 625 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rottinger-v-cryo-dyne-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack