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.
Charlotte LISI, etc., et al., appellants, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), entered February 6, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant County of Suffolk for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and dismissed the complaint against that defendant, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated March 4, 2004, as granted that branch of the separate motion of the defendant Melville Fire Department which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
ORDERED that the order and judgment entered February 6, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order and judgment dated March 4, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The defendants satisfied their burdens on their separate motions for summary judgment to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in their favor by demonstrating that the decedent exhibited no signs of life upon their arrival at the decedent's home (see CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the actions of the defendants diminished the decedent's chances of survival (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra ). The plaintiffs' conclusory assertions that the decedent was alive and that the defendant Melville Fire Department went to the wrong house were unsupported by the record (see generally Mayer v. McBrunigan Constr. Corp., 105 A.D.2d 774, 481 N.Y.S.2d 719).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
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.
Decided: October 31, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)