Creighton v. M&G Bakery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Creighton v. M&G Bakery

2017 NY Slip Op 1332, 147 A.D.3d 1016, 46 N.Y.S.3d 908

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2017

Docket2015-09046

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1332 (Creighton v. M&G Bakery) 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

Creighton v. M&G Bakery, 2017 NY Slip Op 1332, 147 A.D.3d 1016, 46 N.Y.S.3d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), dated August 7, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Frank Coloccia and Frank Viveritta which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Frank Viveritta.

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

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained on November 6, 2011, when she fell on a portion of sidewalk that was used as a driveway near property located at 112 Route 25A, in Kings Park. The property allegedly was owned by the defendants Frank Coloccia and Frank Viveritta (hereinafter together the defendants). The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall. The Supreme Court granted their motion and the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Viveritta only.

Viveritta established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiffs deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Cohen v A.C.E. Rest. Group of N.Y., LLC, 140 AD3d 1111 [2016]; Ackerman v Iskhakov, 139 AD3d 987 [2016]; Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2015]; Blocker v Filene’s Basement #51-00540, 126 AD3d 744, 746 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable *1017 issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Viveritta.

Chambers, J.P., Hall, Miller and Connolly, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), dated August 7, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Frank Coloccia and Frank Viveritta which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Frank Viveritta.

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

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained on November 6, 2011, when she fell on a portion of sidewalk that was used as a driveway near property located at 112 Route 25A, in Kings Park. The property allegedly was owned by the defendants Frank Coloccia and Frank Viveritta (hereinafter together the defendants). The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall. The Supreme Court granted their motion and the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Viveritta only.

Viveritta established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiffs deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Cohen v A.C.E. Rest. Group of N.Y., LLC, 140 AD3d 1111 [2016]; Ackerman v Iskhakov, 139 AD3d 987 [2016]; Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2015]; Blocker v Filene’s Basement #51-00540, 126 AD3d 744, 746 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable *1017 issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Viveritta.

Chambers, J.P., Hall, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1332, 147 A.D.3d 1016, 46 N.Y.S.3d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/creighton-v-mg-bakery-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack