Fusco v. City of Rome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fusco v. City of Rome

236 A.D.2d 869, 653 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 869 (Fusco v. City of Rome) 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

Fusco v. City of Rome, 236 A.D.2d 869, 653 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted proof in evidentiary form that it had not received notice of the dangerous or defective condition that caused plaintiffs injury. Plaintiffs submissions in opposition to [870]*870the motion failed, to raise a question of fact on that issue and failed to include proof in evidentiary form that defendant’s affirmative acts of negligence created the dangerous or defective condition (see, Zigman v Town of Hempstead, 120 AD2d 520, 521). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted proof in evidentiary form that it had not received notice of the dangerous or defective condition that caused plaintiffs injury. Plaintiffs submissions in opposition to [870]*870the motion failed, to raise a question of fact on that issue and failed to include proof in evidentiary form that defendant’s affirmative acts of negligence created the dangerous or defective condition (see, Zigman v Town of Hempstead, 120 AD2d 520, 521). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 869, 653 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fusco-v-city-of-rome-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack