Trautenberg v. Gibney Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trautenberg v. Gibney Leasing Corp.

297 A.D.2d 799, 748 N.Y.2d 65, 748 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8867

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 799 (Trautenberg v. Gibney Leasing 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

Trautenberg v. Gibney Leasing Corp., 297 A.D.2d 799, 748 N.Y.2d 65, 748 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[800]*800The third-party defendant met its burden of proving, by competent admissible evidence (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487), that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Dunn v Smithtown Bancorp, 286 AD2d 701; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636). In opposition to the motion, the existence of a triable issue of fact was demonstrated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint based on this issue. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

[800]*800The third-party defendant met its burden of proving, by competent admissible evidence (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487), that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Dunn v Smithtown Bancorp, 286 AD2d 701; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636). In opposition to the motion, the existence of a triable issue of fact was demonstrated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint based on this issue. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 799, 748 N.Y.2d 65, 748 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trautenberg-v-gibney-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack