From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein V. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 2000
272 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 30, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered July 16, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Mangano, P.J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint based upon lack of notice, the defendant is required to make a prima facie showing establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law ( see, Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436, 437; Colt v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 209 A.D.2d 294, 295). In the instant case, the defendant met that burden. The expert affidavit offered in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was based on conclusory findings and was therefore insufficient to defeat it ( see, Solow v. Liebman, 262 A.D.2d 633).


Summaries of

Klein V. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 2000
272 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Klein V. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Case Details

Full title:HEDWIG KLEIN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC.…

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

Date published: May 30, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 832

Citing Cases

Ryder v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the…

Photonics Indus. Int'l, Inc. v. Xiaojie Zhao

The expert fails, however, to identify both what information was proprietary and by what means it was…