Doherty v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doherty v. City of New York

228 A.D.2d 544, 644 N.Y.2d 630, 644 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7089

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 544 (Doherty 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

Doherty v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 544, 644 N.Y.2d 630, 644 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In considering a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and give them the benefit of all inferences which may fairly be drawn. The motion may be granted only if there is no rational process by which a jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (see, Akerman v City of New York, 226 AD2d 326; Kleinmunz v Katz, 190 AD2d 657). Applying that standard to this case, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants Rabinovich.

We have examined the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707, 708; Mulligan v Wetchler, 39 AD2d 102, 105). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In considering a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and give them the benefit of all inferences which may fairly be drawn. The motion may be granted only if there is no rational process by which a jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (see, Akerman v City of New York, 226 AD2d 326; Kleinmunz v Katz, 190 AD2d 657). Applying that standard to this case, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants Rabinovich.

We have examined the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707, 708; Mulligan v Wetchler, 39 AD2d 102, 105). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 544, 644 N.Y.2d 630, 644 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doherty-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack