Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp.

18 A.D.3d 498, 794 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046

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

DecidedMay 9, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 498 (Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp.) 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

Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp., 18 A.D.3d 498, 794 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 16, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Trans), met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs offered only mere speculation as to the cause of the infant plaintiff’s fall (see Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388 [1994]; Earle v Channel Home Ctr., 158 AD2d 507 [1990]). In any event, Trans did not owe a duty to the infant plaintiff (see generally Marasco v C.D.R. Elees. Sec. & Surveillance Sys. Co., 1 AD3d 578 [2003]).

The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 16, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Trans), met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs offered only mere speculation as to the cause of the infant plaintiff’s fall (see Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388 [1994]; Earle v Channel Home Ctr., 158 AD2d 507 [1990]). In any event, Trans did not owe a duty to the infant plaintiff (see generally Marasco v C.D.R. Elees. Sec. & Surveillance Sys. Co., 1 AD3d 578 [2003]).

The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 498, 794 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehsan-v-trans-service-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack