Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Spallholtz v. Hampton C.F. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 13, 2002

294 A.D.2d 424; 741 N.Y.S.2d 916; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4976

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2018)
Ito v. Marvin Windows of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Reed v. Watts Water Tech., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Wallace v. Tri-State Assembly, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Tyminskyy v. Sand Man Bldg. Materials, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Amazon.com, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2019)
Mendez-Canales v. Agnelli Macchine S.R.L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Rooney v. Garberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Mussara v. Mega Funworks, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Mussara v. Mega Funworks, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Park v. Bay Crane, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Bhandari v. Isis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Sasson v. Setina Manufacturing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Mt. Hope Rock Products, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated February 26, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*425In. response to the appellant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs produced “evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (.Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). This proof established issues of fact regarding whether the appellant owned the subject machine. In addition, there are issues of fact, among others, as to the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the defendant New Hope Pipe Liners, Inc., and the extent to which the appellant asserted control over the subject machine. Smith, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.