Opinion
April 23, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
We conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the successor liability of either the respondent Armour and Company, Inc., or the respondent Greyhound Lines, Inc. (see, Grant-Howard Assocs. v. General Housewares Corp., 63 N.Y.2d 291; Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co., 59 N.Y.2d 239).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.