Tarzia v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tarzia v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

247 A.D.2d 605, 669 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 605 (Tarzia v. Brookhaven National Laboratory) 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

Tarzia v. Brookhaven National Laboratory, 247 A.D.2d 605, 669 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Associated Universities, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated February 19, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which was to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation is granted.

The plaintiffs’ bare assertion that the defendants “negligently misrepresented to the plaintiffs the risk created by the use, discharge and deposit of the hazardous materials” is legally insufficient to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresen[606]*606tation (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778; Fort Ann Cent. School Dist. v Hogan, 206 AD2d 723; Franklin v Winard, 199 AD2d 220, 221; New York Fruit Auction Corp. v City of New York, 81 AD2d 159, 161-162, affd 56 NY2d 1015). In assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) the court may consider any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634). The affirmation of the plaintiffs’ attorney submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, inter alia, the second cause of action is of no probative value since it was not supported by any documentary evidence (see, Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594, 600; Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf 238 AD2d 234; Gorman v Gorman, 88 AD2d 677).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Associated Universities, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated February 19, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which was to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation is granted.

The plaintiffs’ bare assertion that the defendants “negligently misrepresented to the plaintiffs the risk created by the use, discharge and deposit of the hazardous materials” is legally insufficient to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresen[606]*606tation (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778; Fort Ann Cent. School Dist. v Hogan, 206 AD2d 723; Franklin v Winard, 199 AD2d 220, 221; New York Fruit Auction Corp. v City of New York, 81 AD2d 159, 161-162, affd 56 NY2d 1015). In assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) the court may consider any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634). The affirmation of the plaintiffs’ attorney submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, inter alia, the second cause of action is of no probative value since it was not supported by any documentary evidence (see, Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594, 600; Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf 238 AD2d 234; Gorman v Gorman, 88 AD2d 677).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 605, 669 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarzia-v-brookhaven-national-laboratory-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack