Cooper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper v. City of New York

213 A.D.2d 443, 623 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 443 (Cooper 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

Cooper v. City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 443, 623 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [444]*444personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 20, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries arising out of a sexual assault that took place in an abandoned building owned by the defendant, the City of New York. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment and established its prima facie entitlement thereto (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). In opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a factual question as to any of the elements required to establish her claim for personal injuries. Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a factual question as to whether the defendant had any duty to take minimal precautions to protect her from the assault of a third party, whether the assault on the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable, or whether any purported negligence on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of the events which produced the plaintiff’s injury (see, Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288; Muniz v Flohern, Inc., 77 NY2d 869; Waters v New York City Hous. Auth., 69 NY2d 225; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507; Iannelli v Powers, 114 AD2d 157). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, 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 [444]*444personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 20, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries arising out of a sexual assault that took place in an abandoned building owned by the defendant, the City of New York. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment and established its prima facie entitlement thereto (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). In opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a factual question as to any of the elements required to establish her claim for personal injuries. Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a factual question as to whether the defendant had any duty to take minimal precautions to protect her from the assault of a third party, whether the assault on the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable, or whether any purported negligence on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of the events which produced the plaintiff’s injury (see, Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288; Muniz v Flohern, Inc., 77 NY2d 869; Waters v New York City Hous. Auth., 69 NY2d 225; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507; Iannelli v Powers, 114 AD2d 157). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 443, 623 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack