Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Brenda C. MORRIS-WILTON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Euphoria Salon & Spa, Defendant, BECKER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the cross motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to chemicals used on her hair in the course of a coloring treatment at defendant Euphoria Salon & Spa, which is a trade name of Becker Enterprises, Inc. (defendant). Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's cross motion, and we therefore modify the order accordingly.
It is well settled that, “[o]n a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed ‘in the light most favorable to the non-moving party' ” (Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 503, 942 N.Y.S.2d 13, 965 N.E.2d 240 [2012]). “The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985]). In order to prevail on her negligence claim, plaintiff was required to “ ‘demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom' ” (Pasternack v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 27 N.Y.3d 817, 825, 59 N.E.3d 485 [2016], rearg denied 28 N.Y.3d 956, 38 N.Y.S.3d 525, 60 N.E.3d 421 [2016]). On the record before us, plaintiff's moving papers failed to eliminate all questions of fact whether defendant breached its duty of care to her, and whether that breach was a proximate cause of the injury alleged in her complaint, and thus denial of the cross motion is required regardless of the sufficiency of defendant's opposing papers (see generally Winegrad, 64 N.Y.2d at 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 417
Decided: October 02, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)