Cofield v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cofield v. New York City Housing Authority

249 A.D.2d 498, 672 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4630

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 498 (Cofield v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Cofield v. New York City Housing Authority, 249 A.D.2d 498, 672 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals [499]*499from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Vinik, J.), dated June 25, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; see also, Pitchon v City of New York, 243 AD2d 548). The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff was assaulted in the Weeks ville Gardens Housing Development by an intruder who purportedly entered the premises as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant. However, the defendant’s submissions demonstrated that it was impossible to identify the assailant. Thus, it was impossible to determine whether he or she was an intruder who gained access to the premises due to the defendant’s alleged negligence. The plaintiffs opposing allegations rest upon speculative assertions with respect to the identity of the assailant, which are insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion (see, Pitchon v City of New York, supra; see also, Fowler v New York City Hous. Auth., 243 AD2d 284; Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 187; Gleaton v New York City Hous. Auth., 221 AD2d 504). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 appeals [499]*499from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Vinik, J.), dated June 25, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; see also, Pitchon v City of New York, 243 AD2d 548). The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff was assaulted in the Weeks ville Gardens Housing Development by an intruder who purportedly entered the premises as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant. However, the defendant’s submissions demonstrated that it was impossible to identify the assailant. Thus, it was impossible to determine whether he or she was an intruder who gained access to the premises due to the defendant’s alleged negligence. The plaintiffs opposing allegations rest upon speculative assertions with respect to the identity of the assailant, which are insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion (see, Pitchon v City of New York, supra; see also, Fowler v New York City Hous. Auth., 243 AD2d 284; Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 187; Gleaton v New York City Hous. Auth., 221 AD2d 504). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 498, 672 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cofield-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack