Boeje v. Anastasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boeje v. Anastasio

19 A.D.3d 442, 796 N.Y.S.2d 241

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

DecidedJune 13, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 442 (Boeje v. Anastasio) 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

Boeje v. Anastasio, 19 A.D.3d 442, 796 N.Y.S.2d 241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 22, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In response to the defendant’s establishment of her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to whether the defendant created the alleged icy condition on which the injured plaintiff fell (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Baillet v Auerbach, 277 AD2d 335 [2000]; Grizzaffi v Paparodero Holding Corp., 261 AD2d 437, 438 [1999]; Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616, 617 [1997]). Cozier, J.E, Luciano, Crane and Skelos, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 22, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In response to the defendant’s establishment of her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to whether the defendant created the alleged icy condition on which the injured plaintiff fell (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Baillet v Auerbach, 277 AD2d 335 [2000]; Grizzaffi v Paparodero Holding Corp., 261 AD2d 437, 438 [1999]; Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616, 617 [1997]). Cozier, J.E, Luciano, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 442, 796 N.Y.S.2d 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boeje-v-anastasio-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack