Dickens v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dickens v. New York City Transit Authority

7 A.D.3d 403, 776 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6982

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

DecidedMay 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 403 (Dickens v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Dickens v. New York City Transit Authority, 7 A.D.3d 403, 776 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered April 26, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert was conclusory and unsupported by any factual basis, and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to the alleged defect in the stairway owned and maintained by defendant (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 [2002]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered April 26, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert was conclusory and unsupported by any factual basis, and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to the alleged defect in the stairway owned and maintained by defendant (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 [2002]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 403, 776 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickens-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack