Byrd v. Naasira

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byrd v. Naasira

43 A.D.3d 848, 840 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 848 (Byrd v. Naasira) 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

Byrd v. Naasira, 43 A.D.3d 848, 840 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 15, 2006, which [849]*849granted the defendant’s 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 her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 582-583 [1997]; Odi v Lifetouch, Inc,, 35 AD3d 420 [2006]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092 [1985]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 15, 2006, which [849]*849granted the defendant’s 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 her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 582-583 [1997]; Odi v Lifetouch, Inc,, 35 AD3d 420 [2006]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092 [1985]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 848, 840 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-naasira-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack