Bladykas v. County of NassauBladykas v. County of Nassau
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it did not tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant‘s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).
In reaching our determination herein, we have not considered evidence which is dehors the record with respect to the order appealed from (see Juarbe v City of New York, 303 AD2d 462 [2003]; Matter of Hogg v Cianciulli, 247 AD2d 474, 475 [1998]; Gintell v Coleman, 136 AD2d 515, 516-517 [1988]; see also Krzyanowski v Eveready Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 613 [2006]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.