Hendricks v. Town of Fishkill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hendricks v. Town of Fishkill

12 A.D.3d 641, 784 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14499

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 641 (Hendricks v. Town of Fishkill) 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

Hendricks v. Town of Fishkill, 12 A.D.3d 641, 784 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover for damage to property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated December 8, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In response to the prima facie showing by the defendant, Town of Fishkill, of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs submitted evidence, including the affidavit of a professional engineer, which raised questions of fact as to whether or not the Town, inter alia, properly maintained the sewer system serving the plaintiffs’ homes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment (see Zeltmann v Town of Islip, 265 AD2d 407 [1999]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]; Broidy v City of New York, 301 AD2d 551 [2003]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover for damage to property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated December 8, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In response to the prima facie showing by the defendant, Town of Fishkill, of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs submitted evidence, including the affidavit of a professional engineer, which raised questions of fact as to whether or not the Town, inter alia, properly maintained the sewer system serving the plaintiffs’ homes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment (see Zeltmann v Town of Islip, 265 AD2d 407 [1999]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]; Broidy v City of New York, 301 AD2d 551 [2003]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 641, 784 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendricks-v-town-of-fishkill-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack