Cruz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. City of New York

39 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 801

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 398 (Cruz 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

Cruz v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of defendant’s attorney and the arguments made therein are supported by pertinent references to the pleadings, the parties’ deposition téstimony and photographs marked as exhibits at depositions (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]), and establish defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the fact that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Gaud v Markham, 307 AD2d 845 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of defendant’s attorney and the arguments made therein are supported by pertinent references to the pleadings, the parties’ deposition téstimony and photographs marked as exhibits at depositions (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]), and establish defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the fact that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Gaud v Markham, 307 AD2d 845 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack