Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Bonhomme v. Kew Gardens Hills Associates, L.P.

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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2003·Published

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

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).

306 A.D.2d 365 (Bonhomme v. Kew Gardens Hills Associates, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Garvin v. Rosenberg
204 A.D.2d 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Nigri v. City of New York
294 A.D.2d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Christopher v. New York City Transit Authority
300 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)