From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Woodmere Health Care Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1999
258 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 3, 1998, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment dated November 13, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The decedent, whose estate commenced the instant action, was employed at the respondent Woodmere Health Care Center, Inc., when her former boyfriend entered the premises, killed the decedent, and then killed himself. The respondent met its initial burden of showing its entitlement to summary judgment, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The unsworn statements submitted by the plaintiff do not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the motion ( see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813; Simms v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 192 A.D.2d 700). Notwithstanding that the respondent failed to comply with the plaintiff's discovery demands, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidence needed to effectively oppose the instant motion was within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent ( see, CPLR 3212 [f]).

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Woodmere Health Care Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1999
258 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Thomas v. Woodmere Health Care Center, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HATTIE THOMAS, as Administrator of the Estate of PATRICIA C. RAMBALLY…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 258

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.

The plaintiff's argument that all the summary judgment motions must be stayed pending further discovery is…

E.S. v. T.S.

Moreover, as the Opposition submitted by Defendant is in the form of a letter, which is not notarized and…