Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haase v. Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


May 26, 2009

ALICIA HAASE, APPELLANT,
v.
BISHOP JONATHAN G. SHERMAN EPISCOPAL NURSING HOME, A/K/A BISHOP SHERMAN NURSING HOME, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated December 13, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendants Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home, a/k/a Bishop Sherman Nursing Home, St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Episcopal Health Services, Inc., and Church Charity Foundation of Long Island, a/k/a Church Charity Foundation, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, ARIEL E. BELEN and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

(Index No. 28276/98)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion of the defendants Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home, a/k/a Bishop Sherman Nursing Home, St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Episcopal Health Services, Inc., and Church Charity Foundation of Long Island, a/k/a Church Charity Foundation, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In support of their motion, the moving defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325; Wechter v Kelner, 40 AD3d 747, 748). In opposition, the plaintiff's speculative and conclusory assertions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Daleo v James, 52 AD3d 766, 767; Vitale v Levine, 44 AD3d 935, 936).

RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, BELEN and HALL, JJ., concur.

20090526

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.