Case ID: ad2d_297/html/0799-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Trautenberg et al., Plaintiffs, v Gibney Leasing Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Alita Ceramic Tile, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    [748 NYS2d 65]
   The third-party defendant met its burden of proving, by competent admissible evidence (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487), that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Dunn v Smithtown Bancorp, 286 AD2d 701; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra; Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636). In opposition to the motion, the existence of a triable issue of fact was demonstrated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint based on this issue. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.