Gurzenski v. Lirosi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gurzenski v. Lirosi

210 A.D.2d 708, 620 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12772

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 708 (Gurzenski v. Lirosi) 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

Gurzenski v. Lirosi, 210 A.D.2d 708, 620 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered July 2, 1993 in Schenectady County, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Genevieve Gurzenski when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting property owned by defendants. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the complaint. Notably, although plaintiffs in their motion papers attempt to avoid summary judgment by offering various theories of liability involving defendants, Supreme Court correctly concluded that these suppositions were both conclusory and speculative. Since plaintiffs concede that no obvious defects existed in the subject premises prior to Gurzenski’s fall and they offer no other proof establishing notice or raising a triable issue of fact, defendants’ motions were appropriately granted.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered July 2, 1993 in Schenectady County, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Genevieve Gurzenski when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting property owned by defendants. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the complaint. Notably, although plaintiffs in their motion papers attempt to avoid summary judgment by offering various theories of liability involving defendants, Supreme Court correctly concluded that these suppositions were both conclusory and speculative. Since plaintiffs concede that no obvious defects existed in the subject premises prior to Gurzenski’s fall and they offer no other proof establishing notice or raising a triable issue of fact, defendants’ motions were appropriately granted.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 708, 620 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurzenski-v-lirosi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack