Rianna Schwartz v Nevatel Communications Corp.

Schwartz v Nevatel Communications Corp. 2004 NY Slip Op 05229 [8 AD3d 469] June 14, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Rianna Schwartz et al., Appellants,
v
Nevatel Communications Corp., Doing Business as Pinball Palace, Respondent.

—[*1]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not own or control the dog that bit the infant plaintiff (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiffs' submission of inadmissible hearsay was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.