Shumake v. Samaritan Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shumake v. Samaritan Hospital

77 A.D.3d 729, 908 N.Y.S.2d 592

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 729 (Shumake v. Samaritan Hospital) 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

Shumake v. Samaritan Hospital, 77 A.D.3d 729, 908 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated. January 13, 2009, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants failed to sustain their initial burden of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied, and we need not consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Negassi v Royle, 65 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2009]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated. January 13, 2009, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants failed to sustain their initial burden of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied, and we need not consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Negassi v Royle, 65 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2009]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 729, 908 N.Y.S.2d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shumake-v-samaritan-hospital-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack