Clark v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. City of New York

43 A.D.3d 419, 840 N.Y.S.2d 301

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 419 (Clark 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

Clark v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 419, 840 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 26, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that neither it nor its contractor caused or created the alleged defective condition, mounds of tar around a manhole cover, that purportedly caused the plaintiffs accident (see Selby v City of New York, 34 AD3d 440 [2006]; Cucuzza v City of New York, 2 AD3d 389 [2003]; St. Clair v City of New York, 266 AD2d 277 [1999]). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mastro, J.P, Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 26, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that neither it nor its contractor caused or created the alleged defective condition, mounds of tar around a manhole cover, that purportedly caused the plaintiffs accident (see Selby v City of New York, 34 AD3d 440 [2006]; Cucuzza v City of New York, 2 AD3d 389 [2003]; St. Clair v City of New York, 266 AD2d 277 [1999]). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mastro, J.P, Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 419, 840 N.Y.S.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack