From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wells v. Monsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-08342.

Decided May 3, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their claims asserted against the defendants Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Yoga College of India, Patricia A. Monsen, and Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Bikram College of India, and Yoga Bears, Inc.

Harry Issler, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Daniel J. Dillon of counsel), for appellants.

Wade Clark Mulcahy, New York, N.Y. (Nicole Y. Brown of counsel), for respondents Yoga Bears, Inc., and Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., and defendant Brooklyn Realty Group, LLC.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their claims asserted against the defendants Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Yoga College of India, Patricia A. Monsen and Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Bikram College of India, and Yoga Bears, Inc., based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

As the moving parties, the plaintiffs were required to tender evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant judgment in their favor as a matter of law ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The plaintiffs' motion was properly denied since the papers submitted in support of their motion were not in admissible form ( see CPLR 3212, 4518; Speirs v. Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 A.D.2d 531; Lawlor v. County of Nassau, 166 A.D.2d 692; Krupp v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., 103 A.D.2d 252).

In any event, application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a basis for granting summary judgment in this case would have been inappropriate ( see Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219; Feuer v. HASC Summer Program, 247 A.D.2d 429; Davis v. Federated Dept. Stores, 227 A.D.2d 514).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, S. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wells v. Monsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Wells v. Monsen

Case Details

Full title:HEIDE WELLS, ET AL., appellants, v. PETER A. MONSEN, ETC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: May 3, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 586

Citing Cases

Melendez v. 176 Hopkins Associates, LP

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment ( see CPLR 3212; Algood…

Hobish v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.

Although the language of the Policy provision in question and that of Insurance Law § 4232 (b) (4) are…