Hoffman v. City of New York

137 A.D.3d 1078, 26 N.Y.S.3d 880
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 23, 2016·No. 2014-02368·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated December 17, 2013, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when a vehicle in which she was a passenger collided at an intersection with a van that was owned by the City of New York Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and operated by its employee, Kenneth Bell. The plaintiff commenced this action against Bell and the City of New York (hereinafter together the defendants) to recover damages for injuries she sustained in the accident. The defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Vega v Mitja, 137 AD3d 1113 [2016] [decided herewith]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Balkin, J.R, Sgroi, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Hoffman v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 1078, 26 N.Y.S.3d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

137 A.D.3d 1078 (Hoffman v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vega v. Mitja
137 A.D.3d 1113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)