Ashkenazi v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ashkenazi v. City of New York

239 A.D.2d 186, 656 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4930

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

DecidedMay 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 186 (Ashkenazi 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

Ashkenazi v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 186, 656 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered October 11, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendants’ cross motion to vacate an admission to a notice to admit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[187]*187The motion court, in considering plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, properly refused to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in that it has not been established that the tile that struck plaintiff in the head, as she was walking down a street in front of defendants’ school building, came from the school building, and, assuming it did, that defendants had exclusive control over it. In addition, the purported admission, by way of nonresponse to plaintiffs notice to admit, that the tile was dropped from one of two windows of the school building was properly vacated as bearing upon an ultimate issue that should more appropriately be explored through other disclosure devices (see, Taylor v Blair, 116 AD2d 204, 206). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered October 11, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendants’ cross motion to vacate an admission to a notice to admit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[187]*187The motion court, in considering plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, properly refused to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in that it has not been established that the tile that struck plaintiff in the head, as she was walking down a street in front of defendants’ school building, came from the school building, and, assuming it did, that defendants had exclusive control over it. In addition, the purported admission, by way of nonresponse to plaintiffs notice to admit, that the tile was dropped from one of two windows of the school building was properly vacated as bearing upon an ultimate issue that should more appropriately be explored through other disclosure devices (see, Taylor v Blair, 116 AD2d 204, 206). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 186, 656 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashkenazi-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack