Opinion
December 13, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish the cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court to direct judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, Bush v St. Clare's Hosp., 82 N.Y.2d 738). Under the circumstances of this case, issues regarding the adequacy of screening procedures employed by the appellant in the examination of prospective blood donors present triable questions of fact. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.