Anglin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anglin v. City of New York

33 A.D.3d 541, 823 N.Y.S.2d 69

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 541 (Anglin 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

Anglin v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 541, 823 N.Y.S.2d 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 14, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs hand went through the glass panel of one of two identical self-closing, bidirectional doors inside defendants’ premises, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted on the ground that plaintiffs expert’s affidavit was unresponsive to defendants’ expert’s affidavit prima facie establishing that the doors and their glass panels fully complied with the Building Code and were not otherwise defective (see Wallach v American Home Prods. Corp., 300 AD2d 576 [2002]). Flaintiff s challenge to the evidentiary foundation of defendant’s expert’s affidavit are unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 14, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs hand went through the glass panel of one of two identical self-closing, bidirectional doors inside defendants’ premises, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted on the ground that plaintiffs expert’s affidavit was unresponsive to defendants’ expert’s affidavit prima facie establishing that the doors and their glass panels fully complied with the Building Code and were not otherwise defective (see Wallach v American Home Prods. Corp., 300 AD2d 576 [2002]). Flaintiff s challenge to the evidentiary foundation of defendant’s expert’s affidavit are unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 541, 823 N.Y.S.2d 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anglin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack