Atkins v United Ref. Holdings, Inc.
2010 NY Slip Op 02261 [71 AD3d 1459]
March 19, 2010
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010


Violet Atkins et al., Respondents, v United Refining Holdings,Inc., Appellant.

[*1]Damon Morey LLP, Buffalo (Michael J. Willett of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Campbell & Shelton LLP, Eden (Eric M. Shelton of counsel), forplaintiffs-respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (James H. Dillon, J.),entered July 13, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant forsummary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained byViolet Atkins (plaintiff) when she allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk on property owned bydefendant. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. "It is well established . . . that '[a] moving partymust affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meetits burden by noting gaps in its opponent's proof' " (Dodge v City of Hornell Indus. Dev.Agency, 286 AD2d 902, 903 [2001]; see e.g. Hunley v University of Rochester StrongMem. Hosp., 294 AD2d 923 [2002]; Donohue v Seven Seventeen HB Buffalo Corp.,292 AD2d 786 [2002]). We conclude that "[d]efendant failed to meet its initial burden ofestablishing as a matter of law that it was not negligent . . . or that its allegednegligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries" (Hunley, 294 AD2d 923[2002]; see also Kanney v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 245 AD2d 1034, 1036[1997]; cf. McGill v United ParcelServ., Inc., 53 AD3d 1077 [2008]). In any event, we agree with plaintiffs that theyalleged facts in opposition to the motion from which defendant's negligence may reasonably beinferred and thus that they raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion (seegenerally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.