Villager Construction, Inc. v. J. Kozel & Son, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- CENTERPOINTE CORPORATE PARK v. MONY (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Centerpointe Corporate Park Partnership 350 v. Mony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Centerpointe Corporate Park Partnership 350 v. Mony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- KING'S COURT RESTAURANT, INC. v. HURONDEL I, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- King's Court Restaurant, Inc. v. Hurondel I, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Towner Living Trust v. Lottermoser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Little v. Livingston Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Schilling v. Malark (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Mohammed Taj Mohiuddin v. Stringer Construction, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Niagara County ex rel. Niagara County Water District v. R&D Engineering, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- New York Casualty Insurance v. Kushner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Paduano v. Boland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Bendik v. Dybowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action but erred in denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth causes of action. Defendant met its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form showing that the failure of the drainage pipes was caused by errors in the installation of the pipes or in the design of the project and not by the alleged failure of the pipes to conform to contract specifications. The burden then shifted to plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the cross motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The conclusory, unsubstantiated assertions contained in the affidavit of plaintiff’s president are insufficient to meet that burden (see, Zuekerman v City of New York, supra, at 562). Further, the un
We modify the order on appeal, therefore, by granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth causes of action. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.