Torts · MBE-tested
James Esposito, Respondent, v. Richard Capuozzo et al., Appellants
269 A.D.2d 353702 N.Y.S.2d 572·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2000·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James Esposito, Respondent, v Richard Capuozzo et al., Appellants.
[702 NYS2d 572]
[MAJORITY]
—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated January 29, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants did not meet their initial burden of setting forth evidentiary facts sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion (see, Fabbricatore v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist, 259 AD2d 660). Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.