Breheny v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breheny v. City of New York

299 A.D.2d 385, 749 N.Y.S.2d 426

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 385 (Breheny 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

Breheny v. City of New York, 299 A.D.2d 385, 749 N.Y.S.2d 426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Suman Dhary appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated July 16, 2001, as amended by an order of the same court, dated November 21, 2001, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellant demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that she made no repairs to the sidewalk abutting her home prior to the time, and in the area where, the plaintiff allegedly fell and sustained injuries (see Perriconi v St. John’s Preparatory High School, 290 AD2d 546; Surowiec v City of New York, 139 AD2d 727). In opposition, the plaintiff and the codefendant City of New York failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the appellant’s prima facie showing (see Ribacoff v City of Mount Vernon, 251 AD2d 482; Palazzo v City of New Rochelle, 236 AD2d 528). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Crane, 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 Suman Dhary appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated July 16, 2001, as amended by an order of the same court, dated November 21, 2001, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellant demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that she made no repairs to the sidewalk abutting her home prior to the time, and in the area where, the plaintiff allegedly fell and sustained injuries (see Perriconi v St. John’s Preparatory High School, 290 AD2d 546; Surowiec v City of New York, 139 AD2d 727). In opposition, the plaintiff and the codefendant City of New York failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the appellant’s prima facie showing (see Ribacoff v City of Mount Vernon, 251 AD2d 482; Palazzo v City of New Rochelle, 236 AD2d 528). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 385, 749 N.Y.S.2d 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breheny-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack