Zimmerman v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zimmerman v. New York City Transit Authority

115 A.D.2d 477, 496 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54862

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 477 (Zimmerman v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Zimmerman v. New York City Transit Authority, 115 A.D.2d 477, 496 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated November 30, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery.

Defendant’s failure to make a prima facie showing that summary judgment is warranted in its favor "requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Furthermore, plaintiff has alleged that essential facts have not been produced pursuant to discovery requests. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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 conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated November 30, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery.

Defendant’s failure to make a prima facie showing that summary judgment is warranted in its favor "requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Furthermore, plaintiff has alleged that essential facts have not been produced pursuant to discovery requests. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 477, 496 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack