Cohen v. Sterling Mets, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Sterling Mets, L.P.

58 A.D.3d 791, 870 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 791 (Cohen v. Sterling Mets, L.P.) 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. Sterling Mets, L.P., 58 A.D.3d 791, 870 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered August 7, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment dismissing the [792]*792complaint, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk (see Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 10 NY3d 889 [2008]; Sutfin v Scheuer, 74 NY2d 697, 698 [1989]; Koenig v Town of Huntington, 10 AD3d 632, 633 [2004]; Starke v Town of Smithtown, 155 AD2d 526, 527 [1989]; see also Pira v Sterling Equities, Inc., 16 AD3d 396, 396-397 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bereswill v National Basketball Assn., 279 AD2d 292, 293-294 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Florio, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur. (See 17 Misc 3d 218.]

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, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered August 7, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment dismissing the [792]*792complaint, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk (see Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 10 NY3d 889 [2008]; Sutfin v Scheuer, 74 NY2d 697, 698 [1989]; Koenig v Town of Huntington, 10 AD3d 632, 633 [2004]; Starke v Town of Smithtown, 155 AD2d 526, 527 [1989]; see also Pira v Sterling Equities, Inc., 16 AD3d 396, 396-397 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bereswill v National Basketball Assn., 279 AD2d 292, 293-294 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Florio, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur. (See 17 Misc 3d 218.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 791, 870 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-sterling-mets-lp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack