Guerin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerin v. City of New York

31 A.D.3d 708, 818 N.Y.S.2d 476

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

DecidedJuly 25, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.3d 708 (Guerin v. City of New York) 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

Guerin v. City of New York, 31 A.D.3d 708, 818 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover dam[709]*709ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged dangerous condition at issue was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous (see e.g. Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848 [2005]; Webber v Miller, 17 AD3d 352 [2005]; Behar v All Seasons Motor Lodge, 6 AD3d 639 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the motion was properly granted. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover dam[709]*709ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged dangerous condition at issue was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous (see e.g. Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848 [2005]; Webber v Miller, 17 AD3d 352 [2005]; Behar v All Seasons Motor Lodge, 6 AD3d 639 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the motion was properly granted. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 708, 818 N.Y.S.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack