PISAPIA v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE (2005)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

John PISAPIA, appellant, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE, et al., respondents.

Decided: March 21, 2005

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, and ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.

Kujawski & DelliCarpini, Deer Park, N.Y. (Mark C. Kujawski of counsel), for appellant. L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, Garden City, N.Y. (Vincent R. Fontana of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for battery, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated July 9, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for battery.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for battery (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this court.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law