Opinion
No. 29 SSM 19
02-09-2023
MIN ZHONG, Appellant, v. Peter J. MATRANGA, Respondent.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Kevin P. Westerman, Garden City (Arlene E. Lewis of counsel), for respondent.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Kevin P. Westerman, Garden City (Arlene E. Lewis of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs. In response to defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact (see Heltz v. Barratt, 24 N.Y.3d 1185, 1187, 3 N.Y.S.3d 757, 27 N.E.3d 471 [2014] ; Green v. Mower, 100 N.Y.2d 529, 530, 761 N.Y.S.2d 137, 791 N.E.2d 394 [2003] ).
Acting Chief Judge Cannataro and Judges Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Troutman concur. Judge Rivera dissents and votes to reverse and deny defendant's motion for summary judgment, for reasons stated in so much of the dissenting opinion by Justice Peter H. Moulton as concluded that, assuming defendant made out a prima facie case in support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff raised triable issues of material fact warranting denial of the motion (see Min. Zhong v. Matranga, 208 A.D.3d 439, 444–445, 173 N.Y.S.3d 238 [2022] [ Moulton, J. dissenting]).