General
Jorge Perez, Plaintiff, v. Ozone Park Lumber, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. New York City Housing Authority, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant
290 A.D.2d 427738 N.Y.S.2d 580·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
Jorge Perez, Plaintiff, v Ozone Park Lumber, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. New York City Housing Authority, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
[738 NYS2d 580]
[MAJORITY]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated August 29, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the third-party complaint is dismissed.
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 plaintiffs injuries did not rise to the level of “grave injuries” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see, Castro v United Container Mach. Group, 96 NY2d 398; Dunn v Smithtown Bancorp, 286 AD2d 701; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636; Ibarra v Equipment Control, 268 AD2d 13). In opposition to the motion, the third-party plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. S. Miller, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.