Sheehan v. Lull Eng. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Lull Eng. Co.

271 A.D.2d 678, 707 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4515

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 678 (Sheehan v. Lull Eng. 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

Sheehan v. Lull Eng. Co., 271 A.D.2d 678, 707 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant Lull Industries, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered March 30, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

It is well settled that the party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The failure to make such a prima facie showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Rentz v Modell, 262 AD2d 545; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). The appellant’s motion for summary judgment failed to comport with the requirements of CPLR 3212 (b) in that no . proof from a person having knowledge of the facts was presented and the appellant’s documentary evidence and moving papers were skeletal and conclusory. Therefore, the motion papers were insufficient to establish the appellant’s entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York [679]*679Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, 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 wrongful death, the defendant Lull Industries, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered March 30, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

It is well settled that the party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The failure to make such a prima facie showing requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Rentz v Modell, 262 AD2d 545; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). The appellant’s motion for summary judgment failed to comport with the requirements of CPLR 3212 (b) in that no . proof from a person having knowledge of the facts was presented and the appellant’s documentary evidence and moving papers were skeletal and conclusory. Therefore, the motion papers were insufficient to establish the appellant’s entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York [679]*679Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 678, 707 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-lull-eng-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack