Berenholz v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berenholz v. Lopez

21 A.D.3d 977, 802 N.Y.S.2d 697

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 977 (Berenholz v. Lopez) 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

Berenholz v. Lopez, 21 A.D.3d 977, 802 N.Y.S.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order [978]*978of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated November 4, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff tripped over wooden planking which had been placed over the area between the curb abutting the roadway and the sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Portaro v Tillis Inv. Co., 304 AD2d 635 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, 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 defendants appeal from an order [978]*978of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated November 4, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff tripped over wooden planking which had been placed over the area between the curb abutting the roadway and the sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Portaro v Tillis Inv. Co., 304 AD2d 635 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 977, 802 N.Y.S.2d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berenholz-v-lopez-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack