Darrow v. American National Red Cross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darrow v. American National Red Cross

295 A.D.2d 393, 743 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5962

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

DecidedJune 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 393 (Darrow v. American National Red Cross) 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

Darrow v. American National Red Cross, 295 A.D.2d 393, 743 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated January 10, 2001, which granted the separate motions of the defendant and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based, in part, upon the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs [394]*394decedent, the defendant and the third-party defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the defendant neither created nor had notice of the alleged defective condition that caused the accident (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs proof merely raised feigned factual issues, and thus, was insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see McGuire v Quinnonez, 280 AD2d 587; Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393; Martin v W.B. Rest., 269 AD2d 431).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and Friedmann, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated January 10, 2001, which granted the separate motions of the defendant and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based, in part, upon the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs [394]*394decedent, the defendant and the third-party defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the defendant neither created nor had notice of the alleged defective condition that caused the accident (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs proof merely raised feigned factual issues, and thus, was insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see McGuire v Quinnonez, 280 AD2d 587; Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393; Martin v W.B. Rest., 269 AD2d 431).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 393, 743 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrow-v-american-national-red-cross-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack