Stredwick v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stredwick v. New York City Department of Education

90 A.D.3d 1023, 934 N.Y.2d 837

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1023 (Stredwick v. New York City Department 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

Stredwick v. New York City Department of Education, 90 A.D.3d 1023, 934 N.Y.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The respondents made a prima facie showing that they did not cause the plaintiffs alleged injuries. They demonstrated, through the affirmed report of their medical expert and the plaintiffs medical records, that the plaintiffs alleged exposure to silica did not cause her illness and symptoms (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. She offered no expert evidence showing that her medical condition and symptoms were caused by her alleged exposure to silica (see Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, A.EJ., Hall, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 1221(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50822(U).]

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

The respondents made a prima facie showing that they did not cause the plaintiffs alleged injuries. They demonstrated, through the affirmed report of their medical expert and the plaintiffs medical records, that the plaintiffs alleged exposure to silica did not cause her illness and symptoms (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. She offered no expert evidence showing that her medical condition and symptoms were caused by her alleged exposure to silica (see Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, A.EJ., Hall, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 1221(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50822(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 1023, 934 N.Y.2d 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stredwick-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack