Bocanegra v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bocanegra v. City of New York

45 A.D.3d 797, 845 N.Y.S.2d 750

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 797 (Bocanegra 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

Bocanegra v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 797, 845 N.Y.S.2d 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Cobar Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered September 29, 2006, 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 costs.

The defendant Cobar Construction Corp. failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Johnston v City of New York, 18 AD3d 712 [2005]). Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether it created a depression in the crosswalk which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and Covello, 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 defendant Cobar Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered September 29, 2006, 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 costs.

The defendant Cobar Construction Corp. failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Johnston v City of New York, 18 AD3d 712 [2005]). Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether it created a depression in the crosswalk which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 797, 845 N.Y.S.2d 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bocanegra-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack