From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2000
277 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted October 18, 2000.

November 21, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 6, 1999, as denied its motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Steve S. Efron of counsel), for appellant.

Budin Reisman Schwartz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and Harlan S. Budin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that on a motion for summary judgment, the movant is required to set forth evidence establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A failure to do so requires the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Guck v. Palozzi, 269 A.D.2d 777; cf., Pamas v. Dickson, 267 A.D.2d 219). Given the appellant's failure of proof, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.


Summaries of

Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2000
277 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Joseph v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:MARIE A. JOSEPH, RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 600