From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued April 9, 1999

June 1, 1999

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant L.K. Comstock Co., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 20, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant New York Paving, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim asserted against it.

Cerussi Spring, White Plains, N.Y. (Peter Riggs and Matthew J. Wojkowiak of counsel), for appellant.

Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry Girvan, Mineola, N Y (Elizabeth Gelfand Kastner of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross claim by L.K. Comstock Co., Inc., against New York Paving, Inc., is reinstated.

The defendant New York Paving, Inc. (hereinafter Paving) was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cross claim asserted against it by the appellant L.K. Comstock Co., Inc. (hereinafter Comstock). The papers submitted in support of the motion failed to include copies of all of the pleadings as required by statute ( see, CPLR 3212[b]; Lawlor v. County of Nassau, 166 A.D.2d 692; Somers Realty Corp. v. Big "V" Props., 149 A.D.2d 581; Freeman v. Easy Glider Roller Rink, 114 A.D.2d 436). Moreover, Paving relied upon a hearsay document containing a notation written by an unknown person which purported to state the date on which Paving commenced work at the location of the accident ( see, Albrecht v. Area Bus Corp., 249 A.D.2d 253; Jajoute v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 242 A.D.2d 674; Ginsberg v. North Shore Hosp., 213 A.D.2d 592; Rush v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 92 A.D.2d 1072). Paving failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and we therefore need not reach the question of the sufficiency of the evidence presented in opposition to the motion ( see, CPLR 4518[a]; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851).


Summaries of

Hamilton v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Hamilton v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ERNESTINE HAMILTON, plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant, L.K…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 108

Citing Cases

Yacoub v. Natt Leasing, Inc.

The City's motion seeking summary judgment on Natt and Keita's cross-claims for contribution and…

Weinstein v. Gindi

Defendant, who was the only witness at the inquest, testified that the loan was never repaid, and that…