Summary
In Ricci, the court held that Cleaver-Brooks failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment by "merely pointing to perceived gaps in plaintiff's proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why his claims fail" (2016 NY Slip Op 06741, supra).
Summary of this case from Demartino v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)Opinion
10-13-2016
Mark RICCI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, Cleaver–Brooks, Inc., sued herein as Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Suzanne M. Halbardier of counsel), for appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for respondent.
Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Suzanne M. Halbardier of counsel), for appellant.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered October 19, 2015, which, in this action arising from plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos resulting in his contracting mesothelioma, denied the motion of defendant Cleaver–Brooks, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court applied the correct standard on the summary judgment motion and properly concluded that Cleaver–Brooks failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record demonstrates that in support of its motion, Cleaver–Brooks merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiff's proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why his claims fail (see Koulermos v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 A.D.3d 575, 27 N.Y.S.3d 157 [1st Dept.2016] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.