Encarnacion v. Manhattan Powell L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Encarnacion v. Manhattan Powell L.P.

273 A.D.2d 49, 708 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6361

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

DecidedJune 8, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 49 (Encarnacion v. Manhattan Powell L.P.) 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

Encarnacion v. Manhattan Powell L.P., 273 A.D.2d 49, 708 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 9, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured when he was shot at a construction site and now seeks damages for his injuries on the theory that defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate worksite security.

As the motion court held, however, plaintiff, in response to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to adduce proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had prior notice of criminal activity at the construction site. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 9, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured when he was shot at a construction site and now seeks damages for his injuries on the theory that defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate worksite security.

As the motion court held, however, plaintiff, in response to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to adduce proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had prior notice of criminal activity at the construction site. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 49, 708 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/encarnacion-v-manhattan-powell-lp-nyappdiv-2000.