Eisen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisen v. City of New York

254 A.D.2d 134, 679 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11023

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 134 (Eisen v. City of New York) 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

Eisen v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 134, 679 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about July 1, 1997, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Because it was dark at the time of the occurrence, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant provided plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to alight (compare, Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, affd 72 NY2d 888; Diedrick v City of New York, 162 AD2d 496; Otonoga v City of New York, 234 AD2d 592). Defendants, as proponents of a summary judgment motion, failed to meet their burden of tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that an alternative safe path was available and that plaintiff knowingly chose a hazardous path (see, Connolly v Rogers, 195 AD2d 649, 651). Concur— Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about July 1, 1997, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Because it was dark at the time of the occurrence, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant provided plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to alight (compare, Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, affd 72 NY2d 888; Diedrick v City of New York, 162 AD2d 496; Otonoga v City of New York, 234 AD2d 592). Defendants, as proponents of a summary judgment motion, failed to meet their burden of tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that an alternative safe path was available and that plaintiff knowingly chose a hazardous path (see, Connolly v Rogers, 195 AD2d 649, 651). Concur— Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 134, 679 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisen-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack