Finan v. Rudin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finan v. Rudin

271 A.D.2d 402, 707 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3769

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 402 (Finan v. Rudin) 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

Finan v. Rudin, 271 A.D.2d 402, 707 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 21, 1999, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Upon all the evidence in the record, including a surveillance videotape of the accident scene (see, Rosenblatt v Kahn, 245 AD2d 438), the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants established entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law and that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition (see, Pirillo v Longwood Assocs., 179 AD2d 744). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 21, 1999, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Upon all the evidence in the record, including a surveillance videotape of the accident scene (see, Rosenblatt v Kahn, 245 AD2d 438), the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants established entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law and that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition (see, Pirillo v Longwood Assocs., 179 AD2d 744). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 402, 707 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finan-v-rudin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack