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.
Charles B. TIANO, Respondent, v. Philip LANE et al., as Trustees of the Trust Created Under the Will of Carolyn C. Kirschbaum, et al., Defendants, Philip A. Lane, Individually, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered February 12, 1998 in Ulster County, which denied defendant Philip A. Lane's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against him in his individual capacity.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries he sustained in a May 1991 industrial accident that occurred on a loading dock of a building owned by KBC Realty Company, a limited partnership. Plaintiff's claim of individual liability against defendant Philip A. Lane is predicated upon Lane's ownership interest in KBC and his capacity as a trustee of a trust having an ownership interest in KBC. Lane appeals Supreme Court's order denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him in his individual capacity.
We affirm. It is fundamental law that “[t]he 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). Of greater significance here, if the proponent fails to make such a showing, the motion must be denied, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (id., at 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). Here, Lane limited his evidentiary showing in support of the summary judgment motion to the issue of his ownership interest in the subject trust, an issue that has since been abandoned. He submitted no competent evidence on the issue of defendants' negligence. Thus, because the burden on that issue never shifted to plaintiff, the fact that the record contains no evidence to support a finding that defendants were negligent is irrelevant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
MERCURE, J.
MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and PETERS, JJ., concur.
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.
Decided: April 22, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)