Tepper v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tepper v. Feldman

117 A.D.2d 595, 498 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52866

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 595 (Tepper v. Feldman) 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

Tepper v. Feldman, 117 A.D.2d 595, 498 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated June 6, 1984, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and action dismissed.

In response to the defendant’s documentary evidence which indicated that the decedent’s fall and ensuing injuries were not the product of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiffs had the responsibility to lay bare proof and show validity to their claim by evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Mildner v Wagner, 89 AD2d 638; DeBoer v Lloyd’s Shopping Center, 115 AD2d 633). Since the plaintiffs failed to meet this responsibility, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. Mengano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, 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 wrongful death, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated June 6, 1984, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and action dismissed.

In response to the defendant’s documentary evidence which indicated that the decedent’s fall and ensuing injuries were not the product of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiffs had the responsibility to lay bare proof and show validity to their claim by evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Mildner v Wagner, 89 AD2d 638; DeBoer v Lloyd’s Shopping Center, 115 AD2d 633). Since the plaintiffs failed to meet this responsibility, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. Mengano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 595, 498 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tepper-v-feldman-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack