Polanco v. City of New York

24 Citing cases

  1. Jagatpal v. Chamble

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32630 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations, but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 32 N.Y.2d 285, 290 (1973); Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v King World Productions, 161 A.D.2d 355,356 (1st Dept. 1990) (the opponent of a motion for summary judgment must assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs; merely setting forth factual or legal conclusions is not sufficient); Polanco v. City of New 244 AD2d 322 (2d Dept. 1997) ("a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"). The opposing party has the burden of producing admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of triable and material issues of fact on which its claim rests.

  2. Stewart v. City of N.Y.

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32402 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations, but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.,32 N.Y.2d 285, 290 (1973); Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v King World Productions, 161 A.D.2d 355,356 (1st Dept. 1990) (the opponent of a motion for summary judgment must assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs; merely setting forth factual or legal conclusions is not sufficient); Polanco v. City of New 244 AD2d 322 (2d Dept. 1997) ("a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"). The opposing party has the burden of producing admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of triable and material issues of fact on which its claim rests.

  3. Merrill v. City of N.Y.

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31687 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations, but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.,32 N.Y.2d 285, 290 (1973); Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v King World Productions, 161 A.D.2d 355,356 (1st Dept. 1990) (the opponent of a motion for summary judgment must assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs; merely setting forth factual or legal conclusions is not sufficient); Polanco v. City of New 244 AD2d 322 (2d Dept. 1997) ("a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"). The opposing party has the burden of producing admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of triable and material issues of fact on which its claim rests.

  4. Sita v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center

    22 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 23 times

    Furthermore, because the injured plaintiff was not participating in a clinical investigation, FDA regulations did not require LIJ to obtain his informed consent or to disclose the regulatory status of the pedicle screw system ( see 21 USC § 360j [g]; 21 CFR 50.25). Because as a matter of law LIJ established that it had no duty to obtain the injured plaintiff's informed consent, and no triable issue of fact was raised by the plaintiffs, upon reargument, summary judgment dismissing that cause of action should have been granted ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). As to the cause of action alleging negligent hiring and supervision ( see Bleiler v. Bodnar, 65 NY2d 65, 73), in opposition to LIJ's motion, the plaintiffs failed to identify any negligently hired or supervised employee of LIJ. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing that cause of action was also warranted ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; see also Polanco v. City of New York, 244 AD2d 322). In light of this determination, the punitive damages claim and the plaintiff wife's derivative claim are no longer viable, and the plaintiffs' remaining contention need not be reached.

  5. Herrera v. City of New York

    262 A.D.2d 120 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 27 times

    Particularly apt in this context is the familiar axiom that a "`shadowy semblance of an issue'" is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. ( Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341; Polanco v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 322.)

  6. Blankman v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point

    249 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 18 times

    The defendant further adduced evidence establishing that the subject property was never utilized for, or dedicated to, any public use ( cf., Matter of Lake George Steamboat Co. v. Blais, 30 N.Y.2d 48, 51). The respondents' opposing assertions rest upon a series of conclusory allegations which fail to generate triable issues of fact ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra; Slanetz v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 228 A.D.2d 490). Notably, "a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment" ( Polanco v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 322; Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Nigro Bros., 222 A.D.2d 574; see also, Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338). Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

  7. Javaheri v. The Dep't of Educ. of the N.Y.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32099 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, QB N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 [1980]). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Mallad Construction Corp, v. County Federal Savings &Loan Assoc., 32 N.Y.2d 285, 290 [1973]; Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v. King World Productions, 161 A.D.2d 355, 356 [1st Dept 1990] [the opponent of a motion for summary judgment must assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs; merely setting forth factual or legal conclusions is not sufficient]; Polanco v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 322 [2nd Dept 1997] ["a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"]). "[M]ere speculation and unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact" (Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hospital, 93 N.Y.2d 932 [1999]).

  8. Goodman v. 6 W. 57th St. Realty

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 31139 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations, but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.,32 N.Y.2d 285, 290 (1973); Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v King World Productions, 161 A.D.2d 355,356 (1st Dept. 1990); Polanco v. City of New 244 AD2d 322 (2d Dept. 1997) ("a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"). "[R]ank speculation is not a substitute for the evidentiary proof in admissible form that is required to establish the existence of a triable question of material fact" (Castore v Tutto Bene Restaurant Inc., 77 AD3d 599, 599, 909 N.Y.S.2d 452 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Kane v Estia Greek Rest., Inc., 4 AD3d 189, 190, 772 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept 2004]).

  9. 56 Scarlett Assocs. v. Sakele

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31824 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations, but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. (MalladConstruction Corp. v County Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 32 NY2d 285, 290 [1973]; Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v King World Productions, 161 AD2d 355, 356 [1st Dept 1990] ["the opponent of a motion for summary judgment must assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs; merely setting forth factual or legal conclusions is not sufficient"]; Polanco v City of New York, 244 AD2d 322, 322 [2d Dept 1997] ["a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"].) The opposing party has the burden of producing admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of triable and material issues of fact on which its claim rests.

  10. Wilkow v. Araque

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 30588 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely upon conclusory allegations, but must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v King World Productions, 161 AD2d 355, 357, 555 NYS2d 315 (1st Dept. 1990) (the opponent of a motion for summary judgment must assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs; merely setting forth factual or legal conclusions is not sufficient); Polanco v. City of New 244 AD2d 322, 665 NYS2d 534 (2d Dept. 1997) ("a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment"). The opposing party has the burden of producing admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of triable and material issues of fact on which its claim rests.