From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doctor Ventura v. Structural Concrete Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1996
227 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 16, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.).


Defendants established that the injuries suffered by plaintiff in a shooting at an open construction site was not a foreseeable event, inasmuch as there is no proof in this record of any prior assaultive incidents at the job site. To premise liability on such circumstances would "`stretch the concept of foreseeability beyond acceptable limits'" ( Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 63 N.Y.2d 761, 763). Further, the affidavit of the expert submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was insufficient to create an issue as to proximate cause, since this affidavit is conclusory in nature and does not constitute evidence in admissible form sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment ( see, Roman v. Vargas, 182 A.D.2d 543, 545).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Doctor Ventura v. Structural Concrete Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1996
227 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Doctor Ventura v. Structural Concrete Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DOCTOR VENTURA et al., Appellants, v. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CORPORATION et…

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

Date published: May 16, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

Seda v. Port Authority of New York

Before: Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ. Plaintiff's claims based on New York's…

Excalibur Grp. v. R&R Third Props., LLC

Rather, defendants point to the complaint in the related action of Rosenbaum, Rosenfeld & Sonnenblick, LLP v…