From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1994
202 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 14, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that an award of summary judgment in favor of any of the appellants would be inappropriate on this record. Indeed, there are some conflicts between the documentary evidence and the deposition testimony submitted by the appellants, and the appellants have failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that they were not responsible for the performance of construction work in the area of the roadway where the plaintiff's accident occurred (see generally, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1994
202 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company

Case Details

Full title:BEATRICE FINEGOLD, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 14, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

Anderson v. EW Howell Constr. Grp.

On a motion for summary judgment, a contractor bears the prima facie burden of "demonstrating that it did not…

Morris v. City of New York

he plaintiff's injuries (see Sand v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d at 925, 921 N.Y.S.2d 312 ; Hayes v. DeMicco…