Atiles v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atiles v. City of New York

279 A.D.2d 543, 719 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 543 (Atiles 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

Atiles v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 543, 719 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 12, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment as there are questions of fact as to whether it negligently performed repairs at the location of the accident (see, Quinn v City of New York, 271 AD2d 515; cf., Verdes v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 253 AD2d 552). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 12, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment as there are questions of fact as to whether it negligently performed repairs at the location of the accident (see, Quinn v City of New York, 271 AD2d 515; cf., Verdes v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 253 AD2d 552). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 543, 719 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atiles-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack