Trocchia v. Yonkers Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trocchia v. Yonkers Construction Co.

250 A.D.2d 599, 672 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4900

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 599 (Trocchia v. Yonkers Construction Co.) 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

Trocchia v. Yonkers Construction Co., 250 A.D.2d 599, 672 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property based on negligence and private nuisance, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 8, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence in admissible form, including an affidavit and testimony from the examination before trial of its vice president and project engineer, which indicated that it had neither been negligent nor had committed a private nuisance in its work as contractor on the Meeker Avenue viaduct rehabilitation project (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Spearmon v Times Sq. Stores Corp., 96 AD2d 552; Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., 41 NY2d 564; Beck v State of New York, 21 AD2d 939, 940). The plaintiffs’ opposition, consisting essentially of an affirmation [600]*600from an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Spearmon v Times Sq. Stores Corp., supra). Miller, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, 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 injury to property based on negligence and private nuisance, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 8, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence in admissible form, including an affidavit and testimony from the examination before trial of its vice president and project engineer, which indicated that it had neither been negligent nor had committed a private nuisance in its work as contractor on the Meeker Avenue viaduct rehabilitation project (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Spearmon v Times Sq. Stores Corp., 96 AD2d 552; Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., 41 NY2d 564; Beck v State of New York, 21 AD2d 939, 940). The plaintiffs’ opposition, consisting essentially of an affirmation [600]*600from an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Spearmon v Times Sq. Stores Corp., supra). Miller, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 599, 672 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trocchia-v-yonkers-construction-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack