Godfrey v. Mancini Safe Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Godfrey v. Mancini Safe Corp.

121 A.D.3d 413, 992 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2014

Docket13107 14179/02

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 413 (Godfrey v. Mancini Safe Corp.) 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

Godfrey v. Mancini Safe Corp., 121 A.D.3d 413, 992 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, *414 Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered November 20, 2012, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failure to identify the defect that caused her injury and to attribute such a defect to defendants’ negligence is fatal to her claims (see Siegel v City of New York, 86 AD3d 452, 454 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiffs speculation that a malfunction in a drawer of a metal safe caused the door of that safe to strike her in the back is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ, Saxe, Richter, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, *414 Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered November 20, 2012, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failure to identify the defect that caused her injury and to attribute such a defect to defendants’ negligence is fatal to her claims (see Siegel v City of New York, 86 AD3d 452, 454 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiffs speculation that a malfunction in a drawer of a metal safe caused the door of that safe to strike her in the back is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ, Saxe, Richter, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 413, 992 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-mancini-safe-corp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack