Geneva v. Lash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geneva v. Lash

5 A.D.3d 544, 772 N.Y.S.2d 832

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 544 (Geneva v. Lash) 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

Geneva v. Lash, 5 A.D.3d 544, 772 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[545]*545In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated July 3, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On December 31, 2000, at approximately 10:40 p.m., the plaintiff Joseph Geneva slipped and fell on an accumulation of snow on the sidewalk in front of the house owned by his next-door neighbor, the defendant Jeffrey Lash.

The defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that any purported negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs injuries (see Maliszewska v Premier Distrib. Servs., 306 AD2d 517 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative evidence failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

[545]*545In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated July 3, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On December 31, 2000, at approximately 10:40 p.m., the plaintiff Joseph Geneva slipped and fell on an accumulation of snow on the sidewalk in front of the house owned by his next-door neighbor, the defendant Jeffrey Lash.

The defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that any purported negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs injuries (see Maliszewska v Premier Distrib. Servs., 306 AD2d 517 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative evidence failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 544, 772 N.Y.S.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geneva-v-lash-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack