Cohen v. Bank of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Bank of America

30 A.D.3d 169, 815 N.Y.S.2d 459

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

DecidedJune 1, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 169 (Cohen v. Bank of America) 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

Cohen v. Bank of America, 30 A.D.3d 169, 815 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered January 19, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Although plaintiff claimed that her trip and fall was attributable to a carpet defect, she has abandoned that theory of liability and now contends that her accident was solely attributable to her heeding the “instruction” of one of defendant’s employees to “hurry.” The employee, however, breached no legally cognizable duty by suggesting, or even urging, that plaintiff hurry. In any event, no triable issue has been raised as to whether haste was the cause of plaintiffs mishap. Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered January 19, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Although plaintiff claimed that her trip and fall was attributable to a carpet defect, she has abandoned that theory of liability and now contends that her accident was solely attributable to her heeding the “instruction” of one of defendant’s employees to “hurry.” The employee, however, breached no legally cognizable duty by suggesting, or even urging, that plaintiff hurry. In any event, no triable issue has been raised as to whether haste was the cause of plaintiffs mishap. Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 169, 815 N.Y.S.2d 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-bank-of-america-nyappdiv-2006.