Donko-Grogan v. Anand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donko-Grogan v. Anand

2 A.D.3d 393, 767 N.Y.S.2d 851

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 2003·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated [394] October 1, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gillinder v Hemmes, 298 AD2d 493, 494 [2002]; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; Cenovski v Lee, 266 AD2d 424 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and H. Miller, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated [394] October 1, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gillinder v Hemmes, 298 AD2d 493, 494 [2002]; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; Cenovski v Lee, 266 AD2d 424 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Donko-Grogan v. Anand, 2 A.D.3d 393, 767 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 393 (Donko-Grogan v. Anand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related