Abreu v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abreu v. City of New York

40 A.D.3d 666, 833 N.Y.S.2d 915

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 666 (Abreu v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 666, 833 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated September 11, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant-respondent.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (id. at 324; see Restrepo v Rockland Corp., 38 AD3d 742 [1972]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated September 11, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant-respondent.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (id. at 324; see Restrepo v Rockland Corp., 38 AD3d 742 [1972]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 666, 833 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack