Hayes v. Dayton Beach Park No.1 Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Dayton Beach Park No.1 Corp.

182 A.D.2d 578

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

DecidedApril 28, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 578 (Hayes v. Dayton Beach Park No.1 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

Hayes v. Dayton Beach Park No.1 Corp., 182 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered June 25, 1990, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference, defendants’ motion for a directed verdict was properly granted in the absence of any proof to support plaintiff’s claim that defendants owed her a duty to protect her against third-party criminal activity on the premises (Iannelli v Powers, 114 AD2d 157, Iv denied 68 NY2d 604). We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered June 25, 1990, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference, defendants’ motion for a directed verdict was properly granted in the absence of any proof to support plaintiff’s claim that defendants owed her a duty to protect her against third-party criminal activity on the premises (Iannelli v Powers, 114 AD2d 157, Iv denied 68 NY2d 604). We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-dayton-beach-park-no1-corp-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack