From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barbante v. Dipilito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 15, 2000
275 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted June 5, 2000

August 15, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Kathy Chiarello and 20th Dairy, Inc., separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 17, 1999, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and (2) an order of the same court, dated September 30, 1999, as, upon granting renewal and reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Morris, Duffy, Alonso Faley, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kevin Faley of counsel), for appellant Kathy Chiarello.

Squires, Cordrey Noble, New York, N.Y. (Vincent A. Albunio of counsel), for appellant 20th Dairy, Inc.

Bernadette Panzella, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeals from the order dated February 17, 19 99, are dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 30, 1999, made upon renewal and reargument; the motions for summary judgment are granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the plaintiff-respondent.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants' respective motions for summary judgment. The appellants each made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The plaintiff's opposing papers were premised upon speculative allegations of wrongdoing and failed to raise any triable issues of fact as to the appellants' liability (see, Dombrowski v. County of Nassau, 230 A.D.2d 705; Babino v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 241).


Summaries of

Barbante v. Dipilito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 15, 2000
275 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Barbante v. Dipilito

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY BARBANTE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN DIPILITO…

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

Date published: Aug 15, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
712 N.Y.S.2d 427