#Summary judgment standard trial

No appeal from that disposition was taken by plaintiff or by any of the other defendants, each of whom had been served with notice of the transit authority's motion. Agreeing with that contention, on JSupreme Court granted the relief requested. (30 NY2d 143).īecause the only basis for liability of the transit authority set out in the complaint was its alleged failure to have maintained the sidewalk and curb at the site of the accident in a safe condition and its negligence in permitting it to have become dangerous, the transit authority moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's pleading as to it, asserting that it was under no legal obligation to maintain the sidewalk or curb. Each of the four defendants cross-claimed against the others, simply asking for indemnification or apportionment of liability under Dole v Dow Chem. She thereafter instituted an action against the city as owner of the sidewalk, the New York City Transit Authority as operator of the bus, Royfost Co., Inc., the owner of the abutting property, and Harvey's Seafood House, Inc., the tenant in the abutting property. On Applaintiff (who is not a party to the present appeal) was injured when she fell at a curb near a bus stop located in the City of New York while she was attempting to board a bus.

#Summary judgment standard trial

We repeat today a precept frequently statedwhere the moving party has demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure so to do, and the submission of a hearsay affirmation by counsel alone does not satisfy this requirement. CITE TITLE AS: Zuckerman v City of New York