From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Angel Guardian Home

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 1999
263 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 28, 1999

July 12, 1999

In a action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 740 Lab. and for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated May 20, 1998, which granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and denied her cross motion for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action.

Goddard, Ronan Dineen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph P. Dineen and Timothy B. Cummiskey of counsel), for appellant.

Thurm Heller, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Milton Thurm, L. Lynnette Sarno, and Michael Miranda of counsel), for respondents.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 740 Lab.. The defendants proffered sufficient evidence to establish their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff's papers in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the allegedly unlawful billing practices of the defendants "create[d] and present[ed] a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety" (Labor Law § 740 Lab.[2][a]; see, Remba v. Federation Empl. Guidance Serv., 76 N.Y.2d 801; Kaganowicz v. Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 215 A.D.2d 530; Lamagna v. New York State Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 158 A.D.2d 588; Easterson v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 156 A.D.2d 636).

The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on her second cause of action alleging breach of contract. Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).


Summaries of

Smith v. Angel Guardian Home

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 1999
263 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Smith v. Angel Guardian Home

Case Details

Full title:LORRAINE SLIFER SMITH, appellant, v. ANGEL GUARDIAN HOME, et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1999

Citations

263 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 724

Citing Cases

Pipia v. Nassau County

Here, the asserted violations of law consisted of allegedly improper and corrupt purchasing practices at the…

Klein v. Metro. Child Servs., Inc.

ffler is not allowed to engage in nepotism,” the complaint does not cite to any law, rule, or regulation…