Cashwell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cashwell v. City of New York

281 A.D.2d 444, 721 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2383

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 444 (Cashwell 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

Cashwell v. City of New York, 281 A.D.2d 444, 721 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered October 21, 1999, which, upon denying its motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the evidence to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $316,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the motions of the defendant City of New York to dismiss for failure to make out a prima facie case. Whether a municipality failed to remove snow within a reasonable period of time is a question for the fact-finder (see, Gonzalez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 668, 670). The evidence before the jury was sufficient for it to rationally find in the plaintiff’s favor (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered October 21, 1999, which, upon denying its motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the evidence to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $316,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the motions of the defendant City of New York to dismiss for failure to make out a prima facie case. Whether a municipality failed to remove snow within a reasonable period of time is a question for the fact-finder (see, Gonzalez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 668, 670). The evidence before the jury was sufficient for it to rationally find in the plaintiff’s favor (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 444, 721 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cashwell-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack