Goldberg v. Peters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Peters

288 A.D.2d 435, 732 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11349

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 435 (Goldberg v. Peters) 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

Goldberg v. Peters, 288 A.D.2d 435, 732 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered December 14, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Gina Peters for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the respondent’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the respondent was acting under color of law (see, 42 USC § 1983; Dahlberg v Becker, 748 F2d 85, cert denied 470 US 1084; Powell v Jarvis, 460 F2d 551; Perlstein v Rode & Horn Lbr. Corp., — F Supp 2d —, 2000 WL 1693679 [ED NY, Nov. 6, 2000]; Torgerson v Writsel, 109 F Supp 2d 107).

In light of this determination, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered December 14, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Gina Peters for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the respondent’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the respondent was acting under color of law (see, 42 USC § 1983; Dahlberg v Becker, 748 F2d 85, cert denied 470 US 1084; Powell v Jarvis, 460 F2d 551; Perlstein v Rode & Horn Lbr. Corp., — F Supp 2d —, 2000 WL 1693679 [ED NY, Nov. 6, 2000]; Torgerson v Writsel, 109 F Supp 2d 107).

In light of this determination, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 435, 732 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-peters-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack