Summary
finding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant construction company had performed work at the site of the accident, where the defendant's denial "was made solely by its principal and was otherwise unsupported" and where the "[p]laintiffs . . . submitted documentary evidence in the form of a building permit issued to, and insurance certificates obtained by, defendant . . . for the worksite"
Summary of this case from Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. PAR Plumbing, Co.Opinion
November 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.).
The drastic remedy of summary judgment may not be granted if there is any doubt whatever as to the existence of an unresolved issue of fact ( see, e.g., Phillips v Kantor Co., 31 N.Y.2d 307, 311; Ramsammy v City of New York, 216 A.D.2d 234, 236-237). Here, defendant Quigg Construction's claim, that it did not perform any work at the site of the subject accident, was made solely by its principal and was otherwise unsupported. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, submitted documentary evidence in the form of a building permit issued to, and insurance certificates obtained by, defendant Quigg Construction for the worksite. Thus, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Quigg actually performed the work.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.