Williams v. Town of Greenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Town of Greenburgh

101 A.D.3d 990, 955 N.Y.2d 523

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through competent medical evidence, that the plaintiffs condition did not result from the subject accident (see Scott v Martinez, 99 AD3d 984 [2012]; Enyah v Sherpa, 98 AD3d 993 [2012]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs expert was conclusory on the issue of whether the plaintiffs condition was the result of the subject accident (see Barry v Future Cab Corp., 71 AD3d 710 [2010]; Piperis v Wan, 49 AD3d 840 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion should have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through competent medical evidence, that the plaintiffs condition did not result from the subject accident (see Scott v Martinez, 99 AD3d 984 [2012]; Enyah v Sherpa, 98 AD3d 993 [2012]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs expert was conclusory on the issue of whether the plaintiffs condition was the result of the subject accident (see Barry v Future Cab Corp., 71 AD3d 710 [2010]; Piperis v Wan, 49 AD3d 840 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion should have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 101 A.D.3d 990, 955 N.Y.2d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

101 A.D.3d 990 (Williams v. Town of Greenburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related