Smith v. Vinlar Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Vinlar Holding Corp.

303 A.D.2d 745, 757 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 745 (Smith v. Vinlar Holding Corp.) 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. Vinlar Holding Corp., 303 A.D.2d 745, 757 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated November 14, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the defendants had the burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Here, the defendants failed to meet this burden. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated November 14, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the defendants had the burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Here, the defendants failed to meet this burden. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 745, 757 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-vinlar-holding-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack