From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cincotta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 2002
292 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-05402

Submitted February 4, 2002.

March 25, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants VRD Construction Corp., Bruzzese Sons Construction Corp., and Vincent Bruzzese appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated May 7, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Galvano Xanthakis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Constantine A. Pantazis of counsel; Kyle S. Edmonds on the brief), for appellants.

Held, Held Held, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Scott Goldstein of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Joseph I. Lauer of counsel), for defendant-respondent City of New York.

Richard W. Babinecz, New York, N.Y. (Helman R. Brook of counsel), for defendant-respondent Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., s/h/a Con-Edison.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellants failed to satisfy their initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by eliminating any triable issues of fact from the case (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). Since the appellants' motion was based solely on claimed deficiencies in the plaintiff's proof, it was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Carrington v. Commissioner of Westchester County Correctional Facility, 278 A.D.2d 352; Sterling v. Town of Hempstead, 260 A.D.2d 628).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cincotta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 2002
292 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Cincotta v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:LILLIAN CINCOTTA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 25, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 594

Citing Cases

Solis v. Aguilar

Here, the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden with respect to any of the causes of action and…

Simon v. Simon

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion…