Banks v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banks v. County of Westchester

63 A.D.3d 973, 880 N.Y.S.2d 551

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 973 (Banks v. County of Westchester) 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

Banks v. County of Westchester, 63 A.D.3d 973, 880 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 27, 2008, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Miller and Lott, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 27, 2008, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Miller and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 973, 880 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack