Summary
In Schwartz, this Court found that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not own or control the dog which bit the infant plaintiff, and that the plaintiffs' submission of inadmissible hearsay in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Schwartz v Nevatel Communications Corp., 8 AD3d at 469).
Summary of this case from Matthew H. v. Cnty. of NassauOpinion
2003-06613.
Decided June 14, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Dalli Marino, LLP (John Dalli and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Christopher J. Crawford] of counsel), for appellants.
Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not own or control the dog that bit the infant plaintiff ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). In opposition, the plaintiffs' submission of inadmissible hearsay was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.