Barnwell v. Wasserman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnwell v. Wasserman

272 A.D.2d 352, 707 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091

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

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 352 (Barnwell v. Wasserman) 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

Barnwell v. Wasserman, 272 A.D.2d 352, 707 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated May 11, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence that the defendants submitted in support of their motion established a prima facie case that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition which was the cause of the plaintiff’s accident (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion would require a jury to speculate as to whether the defendants created the alleged hazardous condition (see, Schafrick v Shinnecock Bait & Tackle Co., 204 AD2d 706) and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated May 11, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence that the defendants submitted in support of their motion established a prima facie case that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition which was the cause of the plaintiff’s accident (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion would require a jury to speculate as to whether the defendants created the alleged hazardous condition (see, Schafrick v Shinnecock Bait & Tackle Co., 204 AD2d 706) and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 352, 707 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnwell-v-wasserman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack