Donko-Grogan v. Anand

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

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

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]*394October 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

Related

Cenovski v. Lee
266 A.D.2d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Szczotka v. Adler
291 A.D.2d 444 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Gillinder v. Hemmes
298 A.D.2d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 393, 767 N.Y.S.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donko-grogan-v-anand-nyappdiv-2003.