From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waingort v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 30, 2000.

December 19, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 23, 2000, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Tepfer Tepfer, P.C. (Ephrem Wertenteil, New York, N.Y. of counsel), for appellants.

Hoffman Crumpton Roth, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry M. Hoffman of counsel), for respondents David Siegel and Chef A Go-Go, Inc.

Baxter Smith, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Sim R. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent Quick Check Foods, Inc.

Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier Dempsey, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for respondent Petland Discounts, Inc.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which would require a trial (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).

Each defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs' opposition thereto consisted of nothing more than conjecture and speculation, and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Simmons v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions for summary judgment (see, Stewart v. Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 A.D.2d 731).


Summaries of

Waingort v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Waingort v. Siegel

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN WAINGORT, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. DANIEL SIEGEL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 613

Citing Cases

Jones v. New York City Hsg. Auth

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The…

Guzman v. Lundy

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish the existence of a genuine, material issue of fact…