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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

228 A.D.2d 544 (Doherty v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related