Satimore v. Burger King — 288 A.D.2d 893

Majority

p. 893

Catherine Satimore et al., Respondents, v Burger King et al., Appellants.

[732 NYS2d 617]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendants failed to submit evidence in admissible form establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and thus the motion was properly denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 , 562), regardless of any alleged deficiency in plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 , 1063; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Law-ton. JJ.

Cases cited

Zuckerman v. City of New York 49 NY2d 557 N.Y. 1980-04-01 at 562 p. 893
Ayotte v. Gervasio 81 NY2d 1062 N.Y. 1993-06-15 at 1063 p. 893
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 N.Y. 1986-11-11 at 324 p. 893