Mahoney v. Jackson's Marina, Inc.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Mahoney v. Jackson's Marina, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 555, 759 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
• Decision Date: 19 May 2003
• Parties: GERARD MAHONEY, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JACKSON'S MARINA, INC., et al., Appellants.

305 A.D.2d 555

759 N.Y.S.2d 396

GERARD MAHONEY, Respondent,

v.JACKSON'S MARINA, INC., et al., Appellants.

Decided May 19, 2003.

Florio, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Jackson's Marina, Inc. (hereinafter the Marina), its motion for summary judgment was properly denied since it failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that its employee did not violate any duty owed to the plaintiff. The only proof submitted by the Marina in support of its motion was its attorney's conclusory affirmation. This was insufficient to make out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and accordingly, the Marina's motion was properly denied (see Norwest Bank Minn. v Sabloff, 297 AD2d 722, 723 [2002]).

The defendant Pelkowski's motion was also properly denied. The conflicting reports of the plaintiff's and Pelkowski's experts give rise to triable issues of fact (see McIntyre v East Nassau Med. Group, 275 AD2d 398 [2000]). Pelkowski's remaining...