From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 11, 1998
250 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 11, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondent's appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

It is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Matter of Bebirian, 241 A.D.2d 549). The appellant here failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Broyles v. Defelice, 236 A.D.2d 573). There are factual issues regarding the appellant's responsibilities for the maintenance of a steel plate and the safeguarding of pedestrian traffic at the work site. There are also factual issues as to whether the plaintiff's accident was caused by the steel plate itself, or by the snow and ice that accumulated on it. Therefore, since triable issues of fact exist, summary judgment was properly denied.

Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 11, 1998
250 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Bell v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CAROL BELL, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, and VPH…

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

Date published: May 11, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 539