Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

O'Leary v. Bravo Hylan, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 21, 2004

8 A.D.3d 542; 778 N.Y.S.2d 700; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8764

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Crosbie v. KBC Food Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Amit v. Hineni Heritage Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Galvan v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Picart v. Brookhaven Country Day School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
DeFalco v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Bonifer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Ramos v. Mac Laundry Hemp, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Liebowitz v. Kolodny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated January 23, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants had the burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). This burden is not met merely by citing gaps in the plaintiff’s case (see Katz v PRO Form Fitness, 3 AD3d 474, 475 [2004]; Saryian v Ramana, Inc., 305 AD2d 400 [2003]; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531, 532-533 [2003]). Because the defendants failed to meet their burden, the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers need not be considered (see Berkowitz v Decker Transp. Co., 5 AD3d 712 [2004]; D’Angelo v Guerra, 307 AD2d 306, 307 [2003]; Ervin v Helfant, 303 AD2d 716 [2003]; Chaplin v Taylor, *543273 AD2d 188 [2000]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Townes, Crane and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.