Doe v. Church of St. Christopher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doe v. Church of St. Christopher

19 A.D.3d 641, 797 N.Y.S.2d 293

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

DecidedJune 27, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 641 (Doe v. Church of St. Christopher) 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

Doe v. Church of St. Christopher, 19 A.D.3d 641, 797 N.Y.S.2d 293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Church of St. Christopher and Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated October 7, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the appellants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Doe v Whitney, 8 AD3d 610 [2004]; Well v Yeshiva Rambam, 300 AD2d 580 [2002]; Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 AD2d 159 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 848 [1997], cert denied 522 US 967 [1997]). Thus, the motion was properly denied. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, 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 defendants Church of St. Christopher and Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated October 7, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the appellants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Doe v Whitney, 8 AD3d 610 [2004]; Well v Yeshiva Rambam, 300 AD2d 580 [2002]; Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 AD2d 159 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 848 [1997], cert denied 522 US 967 [1997]). Thus, the motion was properly denied. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 641, 797 N.Y.S.2d 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-church-of-st-christopher-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack