Schwartz v. Nevatel Communications Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Nevatel Communications Corp.

8 A.D.3d 469, 778 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8457

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 469 (Schwartz v. Nevatel Communications 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

Schwartz v. Nevatel Communications Corp., 8 A.D.3d 469, 778 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not own or control the dog that bit the infant plaintiff (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ submission of inadmissible hearsay was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not own or control the dog that bit the infant plaintiff (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ submission of inadmissible hearsay was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 469, 778 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-nevatel-communications-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack