Sale v. Lee
This text of 49 A.D.3d 854 (Sale v. Lee) 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.
Opinion
Under the circumstances of this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs did not establish, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; Cator v Filipe, 47 AD3d 664 [2008]; Albert v Klein, 15 AD3d 509, 510 [2005]; Valore [855]*855v McIntosh, 8 AD3d 662 [2004]). Since the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden as the movants, we need not review the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Valore v McIntosh, 8 AD3d 662 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
49 A.D.3d 854, 853 N.Y.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sale-v-lee-nyappdiv-2008.