Bonhomme v. Kew Gardens Hills Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonhomme v. Kew Gardens Hills Associates, L.P.

306 A.D.2d 365, 760 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7128

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 365 (Bonhomme v. Kew Gardens Hills Associates, L.P.) 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

Bonhomme v. Kew Gardens Hills Associates, L.P., 306 A.D.2d 365, 760 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs’ action (see Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336 [2002]; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388 [1994]), the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact (cf. Nigri v City of New York, 294 AD2d 477 [2002]). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs’ action (see Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336 [2002]; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388 [1994]), the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact (cf. Nigri v City of New York, 294 AD2d 477 [2002]). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 365, 760 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonhomme-v-kew-gardens-hills-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack