Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Picart v. Brookhaven Country Day School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 27, 2007

37 A.D.3d 798; 832 N.Y.S.2d 51

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Edwards v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Falah v. Stop & Shop Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Sawicki v. GameStop Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Maio v. John Andrew, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Davranov v. 470 Realty Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Stroppel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Totten v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Williams v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

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, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 3, 2006, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*799The defendants failed to satisfy their burden in the first instance of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). This burden cannot be satisfied merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiff’s case, as the defendants did here (see South v K-Mart Corp., 24 AD3d 748 [2005]; Xu v 688 Sixth Ave. Realty Co., 19 AD3d 687 [2005]; Surdo v Albany Collision Supply, Inc., 8 AD3d 655 [2004]; O’Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542 [2004]; Mennerich v Esposito, 4 AD3d 399, 400 [2004]; Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4 AD3d 387, 388-389 [2004]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

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