From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marquez v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 2008
48 A.D.3d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2708.

February 7, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered July 30, 2007, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing this personal injury action based on exposure to secondhand smoke and referred their alternative request for a Frye hearing to the trial court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for appellants.

R. David Marquez, Great Neck, for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.


Defendants did not meet their initial burden to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment since they failed to offer admissible proof that refuted plaintiff's claim of a causal connection between his bladder cancer and the secondhand smoke (SHS) he allegedly inhaled while incarcerated in city jails between August 1998 and January 2001. In support of their argument that the scientific community has not accepted the proposition that a causal connection exists between bladder cancer and SHS, defendants submitted an affirmation by counsel and an expert's unsworn statement ( Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813).

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 32320(U).]


Summaries of

Marquez v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 2008
48 A.D.3d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Marquez v. New York

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND MARQUEZ, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1059
850 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

Avolio v. Schirripa

The letter written by Yitzchak Frank, M.D. and annexed to their motion does not constitute acceptable…