Sickle v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sickle v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

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

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1080 (Sickle v. King Kullen Grocery 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

[1081]*1081The 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

[1081]*1081The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1080, 919 N.Y.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sickle-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack