Hewitt v. County of Chautauqua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hewitt v. County of Chautauqua

2017 NY Slip Op 6801, 153 A.D.3d 1646, 60 N.Y.S.3d 883

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2017

Docket1073 CA 16-02309

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6801 (Hewitt v. County of Chautauqua) 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

Hewitt v. County of Chautauqua, 2017 NY Slip Op 6801, 153 A.D.3d 1646, 60 N.Y.S.3d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Frank A. Sedita, III, J.), entered September 8, 2016. The order granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he was struck by the metal head of a rake while at the transfer station owned by defendant County of Chautauqua. We affirm the order for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We write only to note that plaintiff failed to address in his brief that part of the order granting the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and thus we do not review that part of the order.

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Trout-man, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Frank A. Sedita, III, J.), entered September 8, 2016. The order granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he was struck by the metal head of a rake while at the transfer station owned by defendant County of Chautauqua. We affirm the order for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We write only to note that plaintiff failed to address in his brief that part of the order granting the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and thus we do not review that part of the order.

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Trout-man, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6801, 153 A.D.3d 1646, 60 N.Y.S.3d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-county-of-chautauqua-nyappdiv-2017.