Hunley v. University of Rochester Strong Memorial Hospital
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Atkins v. United Refining Holdings, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Nolan v. Onondaga County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Edwards v. Arlington Mall Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- PATERNOSTRO, LOUIS v. ADVANCE SANITATION, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Paternostro v. Advance Sanitation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Paternostro v. Advance Sanitation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- McGill v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Gonzalez v. Padin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
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
—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered October 16, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of the motion, defendant contended that plaintiff would be unable to prove negligence or causation because plaintiff’s testimony at trial would be speculative. “It is well established, however, that ‘[a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof ” (Dodge v City of Hornell Indus. Dev. Agency, 286 AD2d 902, 903, quoting Orcutt v American Linen Supply Co., 212 AD2d 979, 980; see Kajfasz v Wal-Mart Stores, 288 AD2d 902). Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it was not negligent (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 ) or that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see Dodge, 286 AD2d at 903; Kanney v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 245 AD2d 1034, 1036). Therefore, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.