Sickle v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

82 A.D.3d 1080, 919 N.Y.2d 343

Opinion

[1081] The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of making a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. The evidence submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which included the deposition testimony of the plaintiff Diane Sickle and of an employee of the defendant’s supermarket, revealed that there are triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred (see generally Collins v 5840 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp., 80 AD3d 551 [2011]; Barrett v New York City Tr. Auth., 80 AD3d 550 [2011]). The failure to make a prima facie showing eliminating those issues of fact required the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Covello, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sickle v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 82 A.D.3d 1080, 919 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 1080 (Sickle v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Barrett v. New York City Transit Authority
80 A.D.3d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Collins v. 5840 Merrick Road Realty Corp.
80 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)