From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mounier v. Caristo Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1984
106 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 10, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.).


Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion and cross motion for summary judgment present no evidentiary facts to indicate that a triable issue exists. Plaintiffs contend that essential facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the movant and cross movant, yet do not set forth any facts which may exist or what efforts were made to ascertain such facts. Furthermore, it appears that essential facts, if any existed, were available by investigation, inquiry or access to public records (see Overseas Reliance Tours Travel Serv. v. Sarne Co., 17 A.D.2d 578). Thompson, J.P., O'Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mounier v. Caristo Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1984
106 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Mounier v. Caristo Construction Co.

Case Details

Full title:RAFAEL MOUNIER, JR., an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, RAFAEL…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Newberg v. Vil. of Great Neck

Facts essential to oppose the instant application, if any exist, were available to plaintiffs by…

Kenworthy v. Town of Oyster Bay

The opponents of the instant motion failed to submit any facts to dispute or impeach the information provided…