Ferreira v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferreira v. City of New York

22 A.D.3d 714, 802 N.Y.S.2d 382

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 714 (Ferreira 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

Ferreira v. City of New York, 22 A.D.3d 714, 802 N.Y.S.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Manhasset Homes Corp. and Mered Properties, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated August 11, 2004, as, in effect, upon renewal, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, upon renewal, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment since they failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not create the allegedly defective condition through an affirmative act of negligence or through a special use of the sidewalk near where the accident occurred (see Moscato v City of New York, 16 AD3d 470 [2005]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

[715]*715The appellants’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro 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 defendants Manhasset Homes Corp. and Mered Properties, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated August 11, 2004, as, in effect, upon renewal, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, upon renewal, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment since they failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not create the allegedly defective condition through an affirmative act of negligence or through a special use of the sidewalk near where the accident occurred (see Moscato v City of New York, 16 AD3d 470 [2005]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

[715]*715The appellants’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 714, 802 N.Y.S.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferreira-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack