Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC
| Citation | 63 A.D.3d 895,883 N.Y.S.2d 53,2009 NY Slip Op 05098 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-07008. |
| Parties | STARLET PEARSON, Respondent, v. DIX McBRIDE, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The drastic remedy of summary judgment should be granted only if there are no triable issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). "The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist" (Kolivas v Kirchoff, 14 AD3d 493, 493 [2005]; see Dykeman v Heht, 52 AD3d 767, 768 [2008]). Additionally, in determining a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant (see Brown v Outback Steakhouse, 39 AD3d 450, 451 [2007]). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the appellant failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Under the circumstances, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the alleged accident actually occurred and, if so, whether it proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain the injuries as alleged. Since the appellant failed to meet its burden as the movant, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's papers in opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
YB v. Carey
... ... true ( Dykeman v Heht , 52 A.D.3d 767, 769, 861 ... N.Y.S.2d 732 [2d Dept 2008]; see Pearson v Dix ... McBride , 63 A.D.3d 895, 883 [2nd Dept 2009]; ... Robinson v Strong Mem. Hosp ., 98 A.D.2d 976 [4th ... Dept 1983]) ... ...
-
Abrams v. Berelson
...for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ( see Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 895, 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53). Thus, to establish that the newly-discovered evidence “would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2] ), we m......
-
Stout v. 1 East 66th St. Corp.
...in the light most favorable to the nonmovants, as we must in considering a motion for summary judgment ( see Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53), we conclude that Interstate failed to make a prima facie showing that Stout's injury did not arise out of work that its ......
-
Keller v. Kruger
...favorable to the nonmoving party.” ( Stukas v. Streiter, 83 A.D.3d 18, 22, 918 N.Y.S.2d 176 [2d Dept. 2011];Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53 [2d Dept. 2009].) “The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine......