Erxleben v. Poland Springs Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erxleben v. Poland Springs Corp.

214 A.D.2d 699, 625 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511

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

DecidedApril 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 699 (Erxleben v. Poland Springs 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

Erxleben v. Poland Springs Corp., 214 A.D.2d 699, 625 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated December 6, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 6, 1994, which denied the defendants’ motion denominated as one to reargue, but which was, in effect, for renewal.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to raise any issue of fact with respect to their sole liability for the plaintiff’s injuries after the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 321; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated December 6, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 6, 1994, which denied the defendants’ motion denominated as one to reargue, but which was, in effect, for renewal.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to raise any issue of fact with respect to their sole liability for the plaintiff’s injuries after the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 321; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 699, 625 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erxleben-v-poland-springs-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack