From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-03326, 2002-08001, 2002-08002

Argued March 21, 2003.

April 28, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 7, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Herphil Company and Gap, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated July 15, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew, and (3) from a judgment of the same court, dated July 15, 2002, entered upon the orders, which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Herphil Company and Gap, Inc.

Todd M. Lewis, Sr., Port Jefferson, N.Y., for appellants.

McAndrew Conboy Prisco, Woodbury, N.Y. (Mary C. Villeck of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders dated December 7, 2001, and July 15, 2002, are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The appeals from the intermediate orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a] [1]).

Since the respondents offered evidence that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, they sustained their initial burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment (see CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The plaintiffs' speculative and conclusory assertions to the contrary were insufficient to defeat the motion (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; see also Henry v. Long Is. Sav. Bank, 277 A.D.2d 351; Busterna v. Branch Office Assocs., 253 A.D.2d 837).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cooper v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Cooper v. Town of Huntington

Case Details

Full title:JULIE MASSELL COOPER, ET AL., appellants, v. TOWN OF HUNTINGTON…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 805

Citing Cases

DiMartino v. Grosskurth

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the appellant established its prima facie entitlement to…

DeLeon v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff commenced this action against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the TA)…