N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment for breach of a lease to demonstrate that the opposing party breached a lease provision.

Attanasio v. Morrison · filed 2001-04-23(b)

However, the Supreme Court should have denied ... the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment since they failed to sustain their burden as the moving party of demonstrating that the defendants breached a provision of the subject lease (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment on liability when the moving party makes a prima facie showing and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Town of Hempstead · filed 2001-06-11(b)

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that the defendant breached the collective bargaining agreement and related agreements, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

A party moving for summary judgment must establish its entitlement through admissible evidence, regardless of any insufficiency in the opposition.

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co. · filed 2001-09-07(b)

As the proponent of summary judgment, Pet Lift bears the burden to make that affirmative showing, through admissible evidence, regardless of any insufficiency in SIF’s opposition.

CPLR 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to eliminate material factual issues and establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Johnson v. Goldberger · filed 2001-09-18

Defendants have not met their burden to eliminate any material issue of fact from this case.

A summary judgment movant bears the initial burden of producing evidence and persuading the court that judgment is warranted.

Kellogg v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner · filed 2001-09-24

It is well established that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment carries the initial burden of production of evidence as well as the burden of persuasion. ... Clearly, in this case, the defendant has not tendered sufficient evidence from which it can be found that an autopsy was authorized.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to offer admissible evidence eliminating triable issues of material fact to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Quito v. Guarino · filed 2001-10-15(b)

We agree, however, that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant Susan Guarino, since she failed to offer any admissible evidence to eliminate triable issues of material fact as to her defense that she was an out-of-possession owner of real property who did not retain control of the premises where the accident occurred, thus failing to sustain her burden of proving her entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Wright v Feinblum, 220 AD2d 660; Suarez v Skateland Presents Laces, 187 AD2d 500).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment.

Heras v. P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C. · filed 2001-08-06(b)

In support of its motion, GMCW established, prima facie, that it entered into a contract to perform work on the building on May 10, 1999, a date two weeks after the plaintiffs accident, and that its employees did not begin work until May 17, 1999 (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), an opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact in response to a movant’s prima facie showing.

Yofi Book Publishing, Inc. v. Wil-Brook Realty Corp. · filed 2001-10-29(b)

The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that the defendant negligently caused the flood that damaged the plaintiffs property (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Van Der Velde v NYNEX, 262 AD2d 308; Sanders v Bass, 235 AD2d 255).

A party moving for summary judgment must submit admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of a triable issue of fact.

Taub v. Balkany · filed 2001-08-27(b)

The moving party on a motion for summary judgment must establish a prima facie case of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form which demonstrates the absence of any triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment by submitting evidence that eliminates material issues of fact.

Daimon v. Fridman · filed 2001-09-17(b)

As the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, the appellant had the burden of establishing her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

A summary judgment movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P. C. · filed 2001-11-13(b)

Accordingly, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hasp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Under CPLR 3212(b), an affidavit establishing the material facts and showing no defense to a claim or merit to a counterclaim can establish entitlement to summary judgment.

Mohen, Craig & Treacy, L. L. P. v. Collura · filed 2001-10-15(b)

The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of one of its partners, which set forth the material facts and established that there was no defense to the cause of action alleging breach of contract, and no merit to the defendants’ counterclaim. Thus, the plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to support its motion with sufficient proof to meet its initial burden.

Berkeley v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute · filed 2001-12-06(b)

Since the proof was insufficient to meet RPI’s initial burden on the summary judgment motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]), it should have been denied.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with admissible evidence that eliminates material factual disputes.

Fiori v. Conway Org. · filed 2001-12-14

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, presenting sufficient evidence, in admissible form, to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case.

A summary judgment movant must establish a claim or defense warranting judgment as a matter of law and show that no genuine issue of material fact remains.

Otis Marshall Farms, Inc. v. Snyder Construction Co. · filed 2001-12-24(b)

In order to obtain summary judgment, it is necessary that the movant establish a cause of action or defense “sufficient[ ] to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in its favor. (CPLR 3212 [b].) The initial burden is on the movant to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

A summary judgment motion must be denied when the movant fails to make a prima facie showing, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.

Charles v. Ball · filed 2002-02-04(b)

The defendant’s failure to make such a prima facie showing required the denial of her motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposing papers (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra at 853).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when a party makes a prima facie showing of entitlement that the opposing party does not rebut.

Cannavino v. Davis · filed 2001-12-17

Accordingly, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing, unrebutted by the defendants, which entitled them to summary judgment as to their first cause of action (see, CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Peeples v. Wyndham Management Corp. · filed 2001-12-31(b)

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to meet an initial evidentiary burden.

Brown v. Schultz · filed 2002-01-03(b)

This evidence was sufficient to meet defendants’ initial burden on their motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment.

Hines v. Swift Transportation Co. · filed 2002-02-19(b)

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment through its supporting papers.

Scott v. Albord · filed 2002-03-04(b)

The defendant’s papers in support of his motion failed to establish that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) in the subject collision (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; cf., Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit admissible prima facie proof establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. Tooke · filed 2002-04-04(b)

Thus, defendant failed to demonstrate its fulfillment of its contractual or professional obligations to Oneida and should not have been awarded summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint against it.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Drogares v. Trustees of Columbia University · filed 2002-04-29(b)

The defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Liederbach was not negligent when she performed the Thomas test on the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant meets its initial burden by submitting admissible evidence supporting its claim that no triable factual issue exists.

Hagadorn-Garmely v. Jones · filed 2002-06-20(b)

Here, defendants met their initial burden on this motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating that their dog did not have vicious propensities inasmuch as, inter alia, they never received any complaints as to its behavior, nor did the animal ever bite anyone or threaten to do so (see, Roupp v Conrad, 287 AD2d 937, 938).

Under subsection (b), a movant makes a prima facie case for summary judgment by showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Cibelli v. Episcopal Diocese · filed 2002-10-21(b)

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law § 205-a cause of action by demonstrating that no predicate violation existed to support the claim. The defendants also established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ common-law negligence cause of action by demonstrating that no action or omission on their part constituted negligence or in any way contributed to the accident in this case (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to make out a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law.

Domingo v. Rouse SI Shopping Center, Inc. · filed 2002-08-19

The defendant Rouse SI Shopping Center, Inc., failed to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party who fails to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is denied summary judgment.

Cappadora v. Berenholtz · filed 2002-09-30(b)

The defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.

Section 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to show initially that no triable issue of fact exists.

Aprea v. Savage · filed 2002-12-23(b)

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment since he failed to sustain his initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to present sufficient admissible evidence to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Rowland v. Crystal Bay Construction, Inc. · filed 2003-01-21(b)

The defendant came forward with sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the branch of its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging adverse possession (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hasp., 68 NY2d 320).

On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant seeking dismissal of a serious injury claim must establish that the plaintiff did not sustain the alleged injury.

Seymour v. Roe · filed 2003-01-30

In relying upon this scant evidence, we find that defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that Seymour did not, as alleged, sustain a serious injury to her lower back or lumbar spine as a result of this accident.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence; unsworn physicians’ reports do not satisfy that requirement.

Baez v. Sugrue · filed 2002-12-23(b)

The unsworn physicians’ reports on which the defendants relied were not in admissible form, and as such were not capable of establishing a prima facie case on the issue of causation (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Washington v City of Yonkers, 293 AD2d 741; Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Marmolejo v. New York City School Construction Authority · filed 2003-03-18(b)

The movant must tender evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment.” ... Applying the above well-settled principles, defendant BriDen’s motion for summary judgment is denied as it has not established entitlement to dismissal as a matter of law.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to present evidentiary facts sufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Medici v. Italian Ornamental Iron Works · filed 2003-05-05(b)

A party seeking such relief must set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle that party to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), evidence establishing that a defendant’s negligence did not proximately cause the accident can satisfy its prima facie burden on summary judgment.

Rose v. Manhattan Beverage, Inc. · filed 2003-04-07(b)

The evidence submitted by the appellant established a prima facie case that the accident was not proximately caused by any negligence on the part of the appellant (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Kohler v. Pat Food Corp. · filed 2003-04-14(b)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Pat Food Corp. (hereinafter Pat Food) and Klein-Kaufman Corp. (hereinafter Klein-Kaufman), as they failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.

Madison-Oneida-Herkimer Consortium v. North American Administrators, Inc. · filed 2003-05-19(b)

In order to obtain summary judgment, it is necessary that defendant establish one or all of its defenses “sufficient to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in its favor. (CPLR 3212 [b].) Defendant, as the moving party, bears the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Marone v. Chaves · filed 2003-06-16(b)

The appellant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing with evidence supporting its entitlement to judgment.

Lugo v. Associates · filed 2003-07-10(b)

However, as the movants for summary judgment, defendants have the burden of making a prima facie showing that the ADA requirement of removal of architectural barriers is not applicable to the building given its age and type. They fail, however, to offer any evidence in support of this assertion.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to present evidentiary facts sufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Conetta v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2003-07-28(b)

The defendant failed to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle it to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Croscutt v. Aldridge · filed 2003-10-02(b)

The Hospital failed to meet its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), defendants seeking summary judgment must establish their entitlement to dismissal as a matter of law.

Dromgoole v. T-Foots, Inc. · filed 2003-10-02(b)

Defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that they are entitled to judgment dismissing the Dram Shop cause of action against Laraby (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to eliminate every question of fact to obtain judgment.

Leeds v. D.B.D. Services, Inc. · filed 2003-10-28(b)

However, the extent of the oversight of Fine Line’s work by DBD is unclear and, thus, as the movant for summary judgment, DBD has failed to sustain its burden of eliminating every question of fact from the case so as to entitle it to summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Section 3212 (b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish its claim or defense sufficiently to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Photocircuits Corp. · filed 2003-10-03(b)

To obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in its favor (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish that the claim has no merit; factual issues raised by the movant’s own submissions require a trial.

Hoffman v. Foxfire North, Inc. · filed 2003-11-21(b)

Foxfire failed to meet its burden of establishing that the nuisance cause of action has no merit; indeed, Foxfire’s own submissions in support of the cross motion raise issues of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; cf. *1006Nussbaum v Lacopo, 27 NY2d 311, 316 [1970]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish its claim or defense with admissible evidence sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Great American Insurance Agency v. United Parcel Service · filed 2004-01-20(b)

The standard for evaluating motions for summary judgment is well established. “To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish [a] cause of action or defense ‘sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in [movant’s] favor (CPLR 3212, subd [b]), and [movant] must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]). ... Here, UPS has presented only the tariff and advances no other documents relating to the actual transaction. Accordingly, the court is unable to determine if the 1998 UPS tariff was properly made a part of the shipping contract at issue.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Greenway Plaza Office Park-1 v. Metro Construction Services, Inc. · filed 2004-02-02(b)

Glazer failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A party seeking summary judgment must show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating material factual issues.

Deer Cross Shopping LLC v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. · filed 2003-11-21

A party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law by putting forth evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must first demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Romanowski v. Yahr · filed 2004-03-19(b)

Defendants failed to meet tbeir initial ... burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a movant to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Nesenoff v. Dinerstein & Lesser, P.C. · filed 2004-03-29

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

A defendant moving for summary judgment must establish that the cause of action has no merit before the court may direct judgment in its favor.

R & D Maidman Family L.P. v. Scottsdale Insurance · filed 2004-04-26(b)

It is well settled that where a defendant is the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, the defendant must establish that the “cause of action . . . has no merit” (CPLR 3212 [b]), sufficient to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in his or her favor (Bush v St. Clare’s Hosp., 82 NY2d 738, 739 [1993]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual disputes; without that showing, the motion must be denied regardless of the opposing papers.

Sheppard-Mobley v. King · filed 2004-06-07

On a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, the proponent must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra).

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to present enough evidence to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and eliminate any material factual issue.

Cruz v. City of New York · filed 2004-06-15

Turning to the motion for summary judgment, the proponent must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact from the case.

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Baldwin v. Wilkins · filed 2004-10-01(b)

Thus, defendants failed to establish the defense of unanticipated brake failure “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in [their] favor” (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; failure to do so requires denial regardless of the opposing papers.

Holdampf v. A.C. & S., Inc. · filed 2004-12-02

In sum, as the Port Authority has failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment, its motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Karmiol v. Astorino · filed 2004-11-08(b)

In support of his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the cross motion properly was denied.

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Hartung v. Lindsley · filed 2004-12-27(b)

The respondents failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

A party seeking summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense must show prima facie that the defense lacks merit as a matter of law.

Humphreys v. 201 Marine Avenue, LLC · filed 2005-04-18(b)

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendant’s second affirmative defense asserting that the Workers’ Compensation Law is her sole remedy is without merit as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Kronos Films v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 86 AD2d 888 [1982]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must offer admissible evidence sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Precision Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Travelers Insurance · filed 2005-05-12(b)

The movant must tender evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A summary judgment movant must submit admissible proof showing no material factual issue and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the burden shifts to the opponent.

Leary v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp. · filed 2005-06-06

When pursuing summary judgment, the movant bears the threshold burden of tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the absence of any material issue of fact and establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Under § 3212, the party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion.

Gaines v. City of New York · filed 2005-06-27

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment carries the initial burden of production of evidence as well as the burden of persuasion.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to support the motion with admissible evidence.

Matter of Cocose v. Diane B. · filed 2005-07-22(b)

This Court is bound to decide a summary judgment motion in accordance with CPLR §3212(b). ... The moving party must first come forward with admissible evidence to support its claim of entitlement to summary judgment. ... The motion for summary judgment is denied.

Section 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to present evidentiary facts sufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Malawer v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2005-05-17(b)

To prevail on their motion for summary judgment, defendants were required to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle them to judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]). Defendants did not meet this burden.

Section 3212(b) places an initial evidentiary burden on a party moving for summary judgment.

Turkow v. Erie Insurance · filed 2005-07-07(b)

Here, defendant met its initial burden on its summary judgment motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]) by submitting, among other things, an affidavit from Joel Hubal, one of its claims adjusters, averring that on August 8, 2001 he personally gave plaintiff a copy of a proof of loss form, a personal property inventory form and a signed credit authorization.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to establish its claim or defense sufficiently to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Santoni v. Bertelsmann Property, Inc. · filed 2005-09-01(b)

For a moving party to obtain summary judgment, the cause of action or defense must be “established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in the movant’s favor (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish a claim or defense with admissible evidence sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

McMaster v. Pearse · filed 2005-09-19(b)

The standard for evaluating motions for summary judgment is well established. “To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish [a] cause of action or defense ‘sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in [movant’s] favor (CPLR 3212, subd [b]), and [movant] must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065,1067 [1979]). The plaintiffs have met their burden and the motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show that no factual issue requires trial and that judgment is warranted as a matter of law.

Morra v. Raimond Corssen Co. · filed 2005-09-29

In a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden lies with the moving party to argue and put forth facts showing that there are no issues of fact to be tried and that as a matter of law summary judgment should be granted.

Section 3212 places the initial burden on a summary judgment movant to present evidentiary facts showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Penn Warranty Corp. v. DiGiovanni · filed 2005-10-24

The movant seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of setting forth evidentiary facts to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law, without the need for a trial.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Lisi v. County of Suffolk · filed 2005-10-31(b)

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 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A summary judgment movant must provide evidence sufficient to satisfy the initial burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Edwards v. State · filed 2005-11-03(b)

As claimant’s proof was insufficient to satisfy his initial burden (see CPLR 3212 [b]), his motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Cuevas v Quandt’s Foodservice Distribs., 6 AD3d 973, 974-975 [2004]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing; an attorney’s affirmation alone does not suffice.

General Home Capital Corp. v. Campbell · filed 2005-09-14(b)

The plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case as its moving papers were supported only by an attorney’s affirmation (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth., 264 AD2d 568 [1st Dept 1999]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment with competent admissible evidence; a movant that fails to address the opposing party’s principal contention does not shift the burden of proof.

Ware v. Baxter Health Care Corp. · filed 2006-01-05(b)

A motion for summary judgment should be entertained only after the moving party has established, by competent admissible evidence, that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Haggray v Malek, 21 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]). ... Having failed to address plaintiffs principal contention, defendant did not shift the burden to plaintiff to lay bare her proof and summary judgment should not have been granted (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a motion for summary judgment must be denied if the movant fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, regardless of the opposing papers.

Paulin v. Needham · filed 2006-04-11(b)

In light of the defendants’ failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Gecaj v DiFiglio, supra).

CPLR 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Gem Services of New York, Inc. v. United General Title Insurance · filed 2006-04-11

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating, inter aha, that it exercised due care with respect to the recording of the mortgage.

Section 3212 places the initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment on the movant.

South Pierre Associates v. Meyers · filed 2006-05-24

The movant has the initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show that the claim or defense has no merit and that judgment is warranted as a matter of law.

Farrugia v. North Shore University Hospital · filed 2006-06-21(b)

It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish that “there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit” (CPLR 3212 [b]) sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in his or her favor.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to first present competent admissible evidence showing that the opposing claim has no merit.

Hadi v. Hadi · filed 2006-11-30(b)

To obtain summary judgment, defendant had the initial burden of presenting competent admissible evidence showing that plaintiffs claim has no merit (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Although defendant’s counsel argued that the agreement was a fair compromise of the parties’ claims that was approved by Family Court, defendant did not submit his own affidavit denying plaintiffs allegations that he had threatened to sell the marital residence, return to Egypt, cut off all support to her and place his assets out of her reach.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment on liability when the movant establishes a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent raises no issue of fact.

Stevenson v. Stockslager · filed 2006-10-10

Accordingly, there being no issue of fact raised in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie establishment of their right to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court ... properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see CPLR 3212).

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Hamilton v. Jam Roc Cafe, Inc. · filed 2006-12-05

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

A summary judgment movant must submit admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

McLean v. City of New York · filed 2007-01-03(b)

Further, in order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must “establish his cause of action or defense ‘sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in his favor (CPLR 3212, subd [b]), and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 places the initial burden of production and persuasion on the party moving for summary judgment.

Delacruz v. Metropolitan Transit Authority · filed 2007-01-12

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment carries the initial burden of production of evidence as well as the burden of persuasion.

A summary judgment movant must present admissible evidence showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; sufficient evidence shifts the burden to the opposing party to raise a triable issue of fact.

Carpenter v. Morrette · filed 2007-01-18(b)

As proponents of the summary judgment motion, plaintiffs were required to produce sufficient admissible evidence to demonstrate that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Ware v Baxter Health Care Corp., 25 AD3d 863, 864 [2006]). ... We concur with Supreme Court that this evidence was sufficient to shift the burden of proof to defendants to raise any triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat the motion (see Antokol & Coffin v Myers, 30 AD3d 843, 845 [2006]).

A summary judgment movant must show that no factual question remains; general assertions of compliance are insufficient.

Clagnaz v. Danino · filed 2007-02-05

It is defendants’ burden, as cross-movant, to demonstrate that there is no question of fact whether the Building Code requirements have been met. General assertions that the construction met or exceeded the Building Code are not a sufficient basis to grant summary judgment.

A summary judgment movant must initially establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Pinnacle Construction, Inc. v. City of Syracuse · filed 2006-12-22(b)

Both third-party defendant and plaintiff failed to meet their respective initial burdens of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212 requires a movant to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment before the opposing party must produce evidence of a triable issue.

Resnick v. Town of Canaan · filed 2007-03-01

As the Town respondents failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment, petitioners were not compelled to come forward with evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.

CPLR 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Vasquez v. AAAA Secure Driving School, Inc. · filed 2007-03-06

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212 was properly denied because they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing through admissible evidence sufficient to eliminate material issues of fact.

Julio v. Maurice Villency, Inc. · filed 2007-03-13(b)

Pursuant to CPLR 3212, summary judgment may be granted upon a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence sufficient to eliminate material issues of fact.

On a summary judgment motion involving the 90/180-day serious-injury category, a defendant may meet the initial burden through the plaintiff’s deposition testimony contradicting the claim.

Joseph v. Forman · filed 2007-06-13

This court determines that when a plaintiff makes a claim under this category in a bill of particulars and that claim is contradicted by plaintiffs own testimony taken before the independent medical examinations are conducted, a plaintiff has effectively abandoned it for purposes of defendant’s initial burden of proof on a threshold motion.

A party seeking summary judgment must provide admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and eliminating material issues of fact.

Finkler v. Minisceongo Golf Club, LLC · filed 2007-06-22

It is well established in the law that a party seeking summary judgment must establish their position by evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant judgment for them as a matter of law.

Section 3212(b) permits a movant to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with admissible proof, including deposition testimony.

Matter of J. · filed 2007-05-17(b)

This motion for summary judgment differs because Respondent has submitted proof in admissible form, including deposition testimony, showing her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to present sufficient evidence showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual disputes.

Legion Insurance v. Northeastern Plate Glass Corp. · filed 2007-06-07(b)

Plaintiff was required to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 *934NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to show through admissible evidence that no material factual issue remains.

Cabrera v. Bais Fruma Primary School · filed 2007-09-19

The burden is upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence in admissible form demonstrating the absence of any material facts.

A summary judgment movant that fails to meet its initial burden is not entitled to judgment, regardless of whether the opposing papers raise a triable issue.

Bozza v. O'Neill · filed 2007-09-25(b)

Where, as here, a defendant does not meet this initial burden, the court “need not consider whether the plaintiff’s opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Jones v Jacob, 1 AD3d 485, 486 [2003]). Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make an initial showing; if the movant fails, the court need not consider whether the opposition raises a triable issue of fact.

Alexandre v. Dweck · filed 2007-10-02(b)

Where a defendant does not meet this initial burden, the court need not consider whether the plaintiffs opposition was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of fact remains.

Milano v. George · filed 2007-11-13(b)

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the motion of the defendants James B. George and Transportation Planning Corporation for summary judgment since they failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether George exercised due care to avoid the subject accident under the circumstances that existed ... at the time the accident occurred (see CPLR 3212 [b]; ... cf. Johnson v Lovett, 285 AD2d 627 [2001]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Powell · filed 2007-11-13(b)

It is clear that GE has failed to meet its CPLR 3212 (b) evidentiary burden requiring that summary judgment be granted, “if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” GE no longer owns the note and mortgage, and thus lacks standing.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Ortega v. Trefz · filed 2007-10-23(b)

Addressing the merits of the motion, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there was no evidence that the injured plaintiffs illness was caused by his consumption of food at the defendants’ restaurant or that the food he ingested at the defendants’ restaurant was unfit for human consumption (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A party seeking summary judgment must first demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

City of New York v. Abundant Life Alliance Church · filed 2007-11-20(b)

The defendant Abundant Life Alliance Church of New York (hereinafter Abundant Life) failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 854 [1985]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a defendant seeking summary judgment on a serious injury claim must submit competent medical evidence that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury.

Motrie v. Reid · filed 2007-11-01(b)

To establish entitlement to summary judgment, defendant must submit competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Snow v Harrington, 40 AD3d 1237, 1238, [2007]; Madden v Bake, 30 AD3d 932, 935 [2006]; Haddadnia v Saville, 29 AD3d 1211, 1211 [2006]; Burnett v Zito, 252 AD2d 879, 881 [1998]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), when a summary judgment movant’s own proof raises a triable issue of fact, the court need not consider the opposing proof.

O'Shea v. Johnson · filed 2008-03-11(b)

Indeed, the report actually identified a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether Mr. O’Shea exhibited significant limitations in cervical range of motion as a result of the accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ submissions with regard to Mr. O’Shea (see Tchjevskaia v Chase 15 AD3d at 389).

CPLR 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

CCM Associates of Clifton Park, LLC v. Board of Assessment Review of Clifton Park · filed 2008-03-06

Next addressing whether petitioner sustained its prima facie burden to have judgment granted to it as a matter of law on that issue (see CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), we find its proffer insufficient.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show that no material factual issues remain for trial.

Grogan v. Gamber Corp. · filed 2008-03-26

Since neither defendant has proved there are no factual issues for trial, the motion and cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability are denied.

A summary judgment motion must be denied when the movant fails to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Adorno v. John T. Adorno, Inc. · filed 2008-08-12

In support of its motion, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied (see CPLR 3212).

A summary judgment movant must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the opponent must raise a question of fact.

Robinson v. Kingston Hospital · filed 2008-10-23(b)

Plaintiffs conclusory and speculative statements regarding the nature of the new position and the employer’s motivation for offering such position are insufficient to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in order to shift the burden to defendants to raise a question of fact on the issue of her constructive discharge (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 [1979]).

A summary judgment movant must make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of fact exists.

Anesthesia Associates v. Northern Westchester Hospital Center · filed 2009-02-10(b)

Accordingly, they failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to this allegation, and the court should have denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the eighth cause of action as was based on allegation that they conspired with the NWAS defendants to improperly divert business from the plaintiffs to NWAS (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party raises no triable issue of fact.

Group 88, Inc. v. AGA Capital NY, Inc. · filed 2009-02-10(b)

The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the available proof established their defense to the plaintiffs’ allegations (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Courtney v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 AD3d 716 [2006]; cf. Higen Assoc. v Serge El. Co., 190 AD2d 712 [1993]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is warranted when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Rayford v. County of Westchester · filed 2009-02-10(b)

In opposition to the defendants’ submissions establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to either claim of negligence (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with admissible evidence.

Katekis v. Naut, Inc. · filed 2009-03-17(b)

The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law by tendering evidence in admissible form demonstrating that they were not negligent in causing the plaintiffs injuries (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of a material factual dispute.

Liberty Meadows, LLC v. Incorporated Village of Jefferson · filed 2009-05-13

A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material fact. ... Based on the above, the plaintiff has set forth a prima facie basis for summary judgment declaring that Local Law No. 6 (2007), to the extent that it conditions the Planning Board’s authority on further approval by the Village Board of Trustees, is void.

Section 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to present admissible evidence establishing the absence of a material factual issue.

Fourtounis v. MJB Service Station, Inc. · filed 2009-05-29(b)

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence that establishes the absence of a material issue of fact (CPLR 3212 [b]; GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 968 [1985] ).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through admissible evidence eliminating material factual issues.

Lake v. Celen · filed 2009-06-08(b)

To obtain summary judgment, defendant Celen must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence eliminating all material issues of fact that he caused plaintiffs Raymond Lake Sr., Raymond Lake III, and Rodriguez to sustain a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

A party seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing, through admissible evidence, that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that no material factual issue remains.

Fontaine v. Juniper Associates · filed 2009-06-30(b)

To obtain summary judgment, the moving parties must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence eliminating all material issues of fact.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the defendant establishes prima facie entitlement and the plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Morales v. Coram Materials Corp. · filed 2009-07-28(b)

By submitting new facts not previously available, Pro-Tek established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment; an equivocal medical opinion about causation does not meet that burden.

Lewicki v. Longshore · filed 2009-12-07

Thus, defendants’ submission is clearly insufficient to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs heart condition claim on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain “a serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment must be denied when the moving party’s own evidence raises a triable issue of fact, without assessing the opposing papers.

Veras v. Vezza · filed 2010-01-05(b)

The plaintiffs deposition testimony, a transcript of which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, raised a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the defendant driver was operating his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed immediately prior to the occurrence, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180, and, if so, whether that violation of the law was a proximate cause of the accident. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1979]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing before the opposing party must raise a triable issue.

Italian Designer Import Outlet, Inc. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2009-11-18

Assuming that New York Central is correct that “[ultimately, plaintiff cannot prove its case, unless they [sic] prove ownership of the damaged merchandise they [sic] seek to collect for” (reply affirmation 1i 10), on this motion plaintiff need only raise a triable issue, and then only if defendant has made its prima facie showing.

Under CPLR 3212, a defendant is not entitled to summary judgment when it fails to establish a prima facie right to judgment and the evidence presents triable issues of fact.

Singer v. Equities · filed 2010-01-05

Even were the court to agree with the defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled to the presumptions contained in Local Law 1, defendant has failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment under the common-law standard as articulated in Chapman v Silber (97 NY2d 9 [2001]).

Section 3212(b) allows summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Johnston v. MGM Emerald Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2010-01-12(b)

Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion as against AMLG and Noto inasmuch as the plaintiff established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating AMLG and Noto’s breach of the lease and Noto’s liability on the guarantee (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a court may deny summary judgment without considering the opposing party’s evidence when the movant fails to meet its initial burden.

Castillo v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2010-04-09(b)

Because defendants fail to establish a prima facie defense that they did not make the snow or ice more dangerous, through negligent attempts at removing or treating the snow or ice, or that they lacked notice of the accumulated snow and ice or a reasonable time to remedy the condition, the court need not consider plaintiffs evidence.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party seeking summary judgment must show that no defense exists or that the defense has no merit.

Covanta Niagara, L.P. v. Town of Amherst · filed 2010-02-11(b)

Plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment by failing to “show that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the . . . defense has no merit” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Executive Sec. Corp. v Gray, 67 AD2d 860, 861 [1979]).

CPLR 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

U.S. Home Corp. v. Elm Farm Associates · filed 2010-03-02

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the escrow agent violated its fiduciary duty, and acted in bad faith, in willful disregard of the agreement, or in gross negligence, by releasing a portion of the down payment to the defendant seller and, therefore, failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212). Likewise, the escrow agent failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action (see CPLR 3212).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish its claim or defense sufficiently to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Williamson v. Stallone · filed 2010-04-30(b)

To obtain summary judgment, a movant must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court, as a matter of law, in directing judgment in its favor.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment with admissible proof.

Shafi v. Motta · filed 2010-05-04(b)

On their motion for summary judgment, the defendants had the burden of establishing, by proof in admissible form, their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 561 [1980]; Myers v Ferrara, 56 AD3d 78, 83 [2008]).

A summary judgment movant must submit admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual issues; failure to do so requires denial.

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp. · filed 2010-05-27(b)

The party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; CPLR 3212 [b]). A failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Smalls v AJI Indus., Inc., 10 NY3d 733, 735 [2008]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit evidence showing that the opposing cause of action has no merit.

Sanacore v. Sanacore · filed 2010-06-03(b)

Given these allegations, we conclude that the husband failed to meet his burden of submitting evidence demonstrating that the wife’s cause of action has no merit (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to make a prima facie showing that no triable issue of fact exists.

Davis v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center · filed 2010-06-04(b)

Based on the aforesaid, it is clear that defendant has not met its prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law as there are several triable issues of fact.

A defendant seeking summary judgment under CPLR 3212(b) must make a prima facie showing that the complaint has no merit.

Boone v. Bender · filed 2010-06-22(b)

Here, the defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the complaint has no merit (see CPLR 3212 [b]; GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Merber v. 37 West 72nd Street, Inc. · filed 2010-07-09(b)

The movant must tender evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment.” ... Applying such principles herein, defendant failed to satisfy its burden on its motion for summary judgment and thus, the motion is denied.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish its entitlement to judgment through its own evidence; a weakness in the opposing party’s proof does not satisfy that burden.

Artalyan, Inc. v. Kitridge Realty Co. · filed 2010-12-16(b)

Their contention that they should have been granted summary judgment because plaintiffs could not establish as a matter of law that they were negligent misapprehends their burden on their own motion. The vague deposition testimony of defendant Kitridge Realty Co.’s principal and owner about whether there was a fire safety system in the building was insufficient to demonstrate that plaintiffs’ cause has no merit (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence.

Englington Medical, P.C. v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. · filed 2011-01-11(b)

On its motion for summary judgment, MVAIC had the burden of establishing, by proof in admissible form, its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 561 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; an unresolved factual issue prevents summary judgment.

Wenger v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre · filed 2010-09-30

Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law that the claim must be dismissed pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). There remains an issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent in properly maintaining the compartment door on the subject fire truck.

Section 3212(b) requires defendants seeking summary judgment in a serious injury case to submit competent medical evidence showing that the plaintiff did not suffer a causally related serious injury.

D'Auria v. Kent · filed 2011-01-13(b)

In support of their summary judgment motions, defendants were required to submit competent medical evidence that plaintiff did not suffer a causally-related serious injury (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Tracy v Tracy, 69 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2010]). ... Therefore, finding that defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a right to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, we reverse the order granting defendants’ motions dismissing the complaints.

A summary judgment movant who offers no evidence rebutting an allegation that supports the claim against him is not entitled to judgment.

Georgius v. Village of Morrisville · filed 2011-04-07(b)

... as Sharp came forward with no evidence to rebut the allegation that his work on the property negligently caused or exacerbated the alleged damage, his motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A summary judgment movant cannot meet the initial burden under CPLR 3212 merely by pointing to gaps in the opposing party’s case.

Brown v. Coca · filed 2011-04-20

Furthermore, a movant for summary judgment cannot satisfy his or her initial burden merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiffs case (Plotits v Houaphing D. Chaou, LLC, 81 AD3d 620 [2d Dept 2011]).

Section 3212 requires a movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment before summary judgment may be granted.

Long Island Power Authority v. Anderson · filed 2011-02-23

A prima facie showing of a right to judgment is required before summary judgment can be granted to a movant.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

AGFA Photo USA Corp. v. Chromazone, Inc. · filed 2011-03-01

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ... In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

A summary judgment movant must present admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of triable factual issues.

Temple-Ashram v. Satyanandji · filed 2011-05-24(b)

A party moving for summary judgment must establish a prima facie case of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form which demonstrates the absence of any issue of triable fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Section 3212(b) shifts the burden to the opponent of a supported summary judgment motion to raise a factual issue or show an applicable exception.

Stride v. City of Schenectady · filed 2011-06-16(b)

The burden thus shifted to plaintiffs to establish an issue of fact as to prior written notice (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Babenzien v Town of Fenton, 67 AD3d 1236, 1238 [2009]), or to show that one of two exceptions exist: namely, that “the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence [or] a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality” (Babenzien v Town of Fenton, 67 AD3d at 1238, quoting Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474; see Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish a claim or defense with admissible evidence sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Carlson v. State · filed 2011-09-08(b)

To obtain such disfavored relief a movant must establish his cause of action or defense “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]), and must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment with competent proof.

Cassidy v. DCFS Trust · filed 2011-11-22(b)

DCFS Trust, as movant, failed to meet its initial burden to show prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Frees v Frank & Walter Eberhart L.P. No.l, 71 AD3d 491 [2010]), inasmuch as it did not offer competent proof that it was engaged in the business or trade of leasing or renting motor vehicles (including the vehicle driven by the individual defendant), as would entitle it to immunity from vicarious liability for injury caused by the individual defendant (see 49 USC § 30106 [Graves Amendment]; cf. Ballatore v HUB Truck Rental Corp., 83 AD3d 978 [2011]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with proof in admissible form.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. RADS Group, Inc. · filed 2011-10-11(b)

As the defendants correctly argued before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. On its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff had the burden of establishing, by proof in admissible form, its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of material factual issues.

Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 2012-01-18

In order to obtain summary judgment, the moving party must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. ... Accordingly, with regard to the subject 159 wells, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that no material factual issue remains.

Taylor v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2012-03-08

The NYCHA had the burden on this motion to establish as a matter of law, preferably through testimony or affidavit of an electrician who installed or examined the detector, that the installation was proper under the Code (i.e., that there were no switches in the circuit) or that the installation could not have otherwise led to a malfunction. However, there is no proof offered which conclusively resolves these issues.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment with admissible proof; failure to do so warrants denial of the motion.

Currie v. Wilhouski · filed 2012-03-27(b)

Since Arnica failed to submit admissible proof, such as depositions or written admissions, or an affidavit by a person having ... knowledge of the facts, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law {see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to present admissible evidence sufficient for judgment as a matter of law; failure to meet that initial burden requires denial of the motion.

Parmerter v. State · filed 2012-03-29(b)

To obtain such disfavored relief a movant must establish his cause of action or defense “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]), and must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]). The failure to satisfy that initial burden requires the denial of motion, without considering the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a sufficient defense.

Kaess v. State · filed 2011-12-28

Arch has established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the State failed to provide Arch with notice, as soon as practicable, of an occurrence or claim being made against it, as required by the policy until 91 days after being served with claimant’s notice of intention (McGovern-Barbash Assoc., LLC v Everest Natl. Ins. Co., 79 AD3d 981 [2d Dept 2010]; Evangelos Car Wash, Inc. v Utica First Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 727 [2d Dept 2007]).

Section 3212 requires a medical malpractice claimant seeking summary judgment to show a departure from accepted medical care and that the departure caused the claimed injuries.

Henderson v. State · filed 2012-01-19

To the extent that claimant references CPLR 3212 in his affidavit, the court finds that claimant has failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the absence of proof of a departure from the accepted standard of medical care and that such departure was a proximate cause of the injuries claimed (see McKenzie v Abrahams, 72 AD3d 758, 759 [2d Dept 2010]; Toomey v Adirondack Surgical Assoc., 280 AD2d 754, 755 [3d Dept 2001]).

A summary judgment movant who fails to eliminate triable issues of fact does not meet its prima facie burden, so the court need not consider the opposing submissions.

Young v. Destaso Funding, LLC · filed 2012-02-14

Since the appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the submissions in opposition to that branch of the motion raised a triable issue of fact (see Poverud v Kwartler, 90 AD3d 729 [2011]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Bergstrom v. McChesney · filed 2012-02-16(b)

We agree with Supreme Court that these submissions were sufficient to meet plaintiffs burden to demonstrate a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Klotz v Warick, 53 AD3d 976, 978 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 712 [2008]; Patterson v Palmieri, 307 AD2d 668, 668-669 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 546 [2003]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a defendant seeking summary judgment must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the claims it seeks to dismiss.

VAN BROCKLEN, RUSSEL v. ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2012-06-08(b)

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s constitutional claims inasmuch as it failed to demonstrate that, at the time plaintiff received the injections, he was “engag[ing] in conduct or [was] imminently likely to engage in conduct posing a risk of physical harm to himself or others” (14 NYCRR 527.8 [a] [4]; see Kulak, 88 F3d at 73-75; see generally CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing; if the movant fails, the court need not assess the opposing papers.

Jones v. Rochdale Village, Inc. · filed 2012-06-27

Since Zimmerman failed to meet its prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).