From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Vinlar Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-11002

Argued March 13, 2003.

March 31, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated November 14, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Susan B. Owens, Valhalla, N.Y. (Joseph M. Zecca of counsel), for appellants.

Ripka, Rotter King, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the defendants had the burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra). Here, the defendants failed to meet this burden. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Vinlar Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Smith v. Vinlar Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY SMITH, respondent, v. VINLAR HOLDING CORPORATION, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Mar 31, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 450