Fadare v. Akingrade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fadare v. Akingrade

21 A.D.3d 346, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 346 (Fadare v. Akingrade) 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

Fadare v. Akingrade, 21 A.D.3d 346, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914 (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 (Vaughan, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the alleged negligence of the defendants was a proximate cause of the damages alleged (see Acevedo v Audubon Mgt., 280 AD2d 91 [2001]; Amble v City of New York, 157 AD2d 688 [1990]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, 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 (Vaughan, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the alleged negligence of the defendants was a proximate cause of the damages alleged (see Acevedo v Audubon Mgt., 280 AD2d 91 [2001]; Amble v City of New York, 157 AD2d 688 [1990]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 346, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fadare-v-akingrade-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack