From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tronlone v. Du Quebec

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 8, 2003
99 N.Y.2d 647 (N.Y. 2003)

Summary

affirming application of New York law where there was no relevant conflict between the substantive laws of New York and New Jersey

Summary of this case from Perrone v. Amato

Opinion

97

Decided April 8, 2003.

Appeal, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered September 17, 2002, which, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Helen Freedman, J.), entered in New York County, denying a motion by a defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?"

Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, 297 A.D.2d 528, affirmed.

Submitted by Allan Young, for appellant.

Submitted by Robert I. Komitor, for respondent.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.


MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

In this wrongful death action, plaintiff submitted sufficient proof in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment to create a triable issue of fact as to whether asbestos fibers manufactured by the defendant were supplied to decedent's employer during his tenure there. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied under the relevant law of either New Jersey or New York.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.

Judge Read dissents and votes to reverse for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 297 A.D.2d 528, at 529-531).


Summaries of

Tronlone v. Du Quebec

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 8, 2003
99 N.Y.2d 647 (N.Y. 2003)

affirming application of New York law where there was no relevant conflict between the substantive laws of New York and New Jersey

Summary of this case from Perrone v. Amato

affirming the trial court's rejection of a choice of laws analysis and subsequent use of New York law, despite the appellant's assertion that New Jersey law be used, because there was "no relevant conflict" between the applicable laws of New York and New Jersey

Summary of this case from Brewer v. Gem Indus. Inc.

affirming the trial court's rejection of a choice of laws analysis and subsequent use of New York law, despite appellant's assertion that New Jersey law be used, because there was "no relevant conflict" between the applicable laws of New York and New Jersey

Summary of this case from Galeotti v. Cianbro Corp.

affirming application of New York law where there was "no relevant conflict" between the substantive laws of New York and New Jersey

Summary of this case from Seale v. Newell

affirming the application of New York law where no "relevant conflict" existed between substantive law of New York and Newfoundland

Summary of this case from Treppel v. Biovail Corp.
Case details for

Tronlone v. Du Quebec

Case Details

Full title:LUCY TRONLONE, C., RESPONDENT, v. LAC D'AMIANTE Du QUEBEC, LTEE, C.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 8, 2003

Citations

99 N.Y.2d 647 (N.Y. 2003)
790 N.E.2d 269

Citing Cases

Yattassaye v. City of N.Y.

The court's role in deciding a summary judgment motion is to determine whether there are any issues of fact…

ZDG, LLC v. 174-176 1st Ave. Owner

The court's task in deciding a summary judgment motion is to determine whether there are bona fide issues of…