DiCupe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiCupe v. City of New York

167 A.D.2d 442, 562 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14045

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 442 (DiCupe 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

DiCupe v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 442, 562 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered June 14, 1988, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent City of New York, for reasons stated by Justice Hutcherson at the Supreme Court.

Additionally, we note that contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the issue of whether the defendant City of New York was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity pursuant to Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579) was raised in a timely fashion before the Supreme Court. Further, we find that the plaintiffs failed to present proof raising a triable issue of fact concerning whether the design of the roadway where the injured plaintiff’s accident occurred was made without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis (see, Weiss v Fote, supra, at 589). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Ritter, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered June 14, 1988, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent City of New York, for reasons stated by Justice Hutcherson at the Supreme Court.

Additionally, we note that contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the issue of whether the defendant City of New York was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity pursuant to Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579) was raised in a timely fashion before the Supreme Court. Further, we find that the plaintiffs failed to present proof raising a triable issue of fact concerning whether the design of the roadway where the injured plaintiff’s accident occurred was made without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis (see, Weiss v Fote, supra, at 589). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 442, 562 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicupe-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack