Smith v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Board of Education

226 A.D.2d 362, 640 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3413

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

DecidedApril 1, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 362 (Smith v. Board of Education) 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

Smith v. Board of Education, 226 A.D.2d 362, 640 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, West-[363]*363Chester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated January 5, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1), and that such violation was a contributing cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513). In op position to the motion, the defendants only submitted an affirmation of counsel which alleged in a conclusory fashion that issues of fact existed as to how the accident occurred and whether the defendants’ violation was a proximate cause of the injuries. This is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Figueroa v Manhattanville Coll., 193 AD2d 778; Walsh v Baker, 172 AD2d 1038). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, West-[363]*363Chester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated January 5, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1), and that such violation was a contributing cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries (see, Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513). In op position to the motion, the defendants only submitted an affirmation of counsel which alleged in a conclusory fashion that issues of fact existed as to how the accident occurred and whether the defendants’ violation was a proximate cause of the injuries. This is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Figueroa v Manhattanville Coll., 193 AD2d 778; Walsh v Baker, 172 AD2d 1038). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 362, 640 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack