General
Robert Trautenberg et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gibney Leasing Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Alita Ceramic Tile, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant
297 A.D.2d 799748 N.Y.S.2d 65·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2002·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
Robert Trautenberg et al., Plaintiffs, v Gibney Leasing Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Alita Ceramic Tile, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
[748 NYS2d 65]
[MAJORITY]
The third-party defendant met its burden of proving, by competent admissible evidence (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487), that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Dunn v Smithtown Bancorp, 286 AD2d 701; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636). In opposition to the motion, the existence of a triable issue of fact was demonstrated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint based on this issue. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.