Scott v. Long Island Power Authority

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Scott v. Long Island Power Authority, 294 AD2d 348, 741 NYS2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
• Decision Date: 06 May 2002
• Parties: VIVIAN SCOTT et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, Appellant.

294 A.D.2d 348

741 N.Y.S.2d 708

VIVIAN SCOTT et al., Respondents,

v.LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, Appellant.

Decided May 6, 2002.

Santucci, J.P., Altman, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that on a motion for summary judgment the court is not to engage in the weighing of evidence. Rather, the court's function is to determine whether "by no rational process could the trier of facts find for the nonmoving party" (Jastrzebski v North Shore School Dist., 223 AD2d 677, 678 [internal quotation marks omitted]). It is equally well established that the motion should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility (see Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366).

In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiffs raised questions of fact regarding whether the defendant failed to use reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent the infant plaintiff's injuries (see Scurti v City of New York, 40 NY2d 433; Daniels v Long Is. R.R., 259 AD2d 726). Thus, the...