Dupree v. Mackenzie Automatic Doors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dupree v. Mackenzie Automatic Doors, Inc.

22 A.D.3d 789, 802 N.Y.S.2d 752

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 789 (Dupree v. Mackenzie Automatic Doors, Inc.) 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

Dupree v. Mackenzie Automatic Doors, Inc., 22 A.D.3d 789, 802 N.Y.S.2d 752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[790]*790In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 17, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant, in reinstalling the subject door saddle, did so without reasonable care and created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff causing her injuries (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

[790]*790In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 17, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant, in reinstalling the subject door saddle, did so without reasonable care and created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff causing her injuries (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 789, 802 N.Y.S.2d 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupree-v-mackenzie-automatic-doors-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack