From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matos v. Challenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2008
50 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 3473.

April 24, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered May 7, 2007, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted the motion of defendant Challenger Equipment Corp. (Challenger) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Alpert Kaufman, LLP, New York (Gary Slobin of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen, Kuhn Associates, New York (Gary P. Asher of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.


Challenger made a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that it did not make repairs to the griddle top of the oven at Plaintiff's employer, the instrument which caused Plaintiff's injury. The work order and invoice relating to repairs effected approximately two weeks prior to the subject accident demonstrate that the work performed did not relate to the griddle top ( compare Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 AD2d 132). The affidavit from Plaintiff's expert submitted in response to Challenger's motion lacked an appropriate evidentiary basis to create a triable issue of fact ( see Butler-Francis v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 433, 434).

We have considered Plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Matos v. Challenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2008
50 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Matos v. Challenger

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD MATOS, Appellant, v. CHALLENGER EQUIPMENT CORP., Doing Business as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 24, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3684
857 N.Y.S.2d 76

Citing Cases

Roimesher v. Colgate Scaffolding Equip

Since the pleadings and discovery are bereft of any allegation that Colgate's sidewalk bridge directed…

Lansen v. SL Green Realty Corp.

The expert provides no explanation for exactly how he determined the size of the gap at the time of…