From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tuttle v. Coach Nail Salon, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 2006
29 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2006-00805.

May 30, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated January 9, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Molod Spitz DeSantis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marcy Sonneborn and Alice Spitz of counsel), for appellant.

Birbrower Law Firm, P.C., Peekskill, N.Y. (Barry Birbrower of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crane, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that she contracted the herpes simplex virus during an eyebrow waxing procedure that was performed at the defendant's premises. She commenced the instant action to recover damages for her alleged injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the plaintiff became afflicted with the virus during the eyebrow waxing ( cf. Rossoto v. Vadher, 220 AD2d 569, 570). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion.


Summaries of

Tuttle v. Coach Nail Salon, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 2006
29 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Tuttle v. Coach Nail Salon, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CAROLYN TUTTLE, Respondent, v. COACH NAIL SALON, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: May 30, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4271
815 N.Y.S.2d 476

Citing Cases

Schoenberg v. Dankberg

Plaintiff fails to provide contradictory testimony from another qualified opinion witness, some other…