Gerrity v. Muthana

New York Court of Appeals

Gerrity v. Muthana

857 N.E.2d 527, 7 N.Y.3d 834

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 857 N.E.2d 527 (Gerrity v. Muthana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gerrity v. Muthana, 857 N.E.2d 527, 7 N.Y.3d 834 (N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming that the location of the bus owned by defendant Leprechaun Lines, Inc. in the traffic lane at the time of the accident resulted, in some respect, from negligence on the part of Leprechaun, the City of Buffalo or the County of Erie/ [836]*836Erie Community College as plaintiffs allege, these defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because they established, as a matter of law, that the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries (see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming that the location of the bus owned by defendant Leprechaun Lines, Inc. in the traffic lane at the time of the accident resulted, in some respect, from negligence on the part of Leprechaun, the City of Buffalo or the County of Erie/ [836]*836Erie Community College as plaintiffs allege, these defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because they established, as a matter of law, that the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries (see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

857 N.E.2d 527, 7 N.Y.3d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerrity-v-muthana-ny-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack