Huttner v. Queens College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huttner v. Queens College

287 A.D.2d 543, 731 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9542

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 543 (Huttner v. Queens College) 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

Huttner v. Queens College, 287 A.D.2d 543, 731 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 6, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for leave to amend its answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City of New York, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the City of New York which was for leave to amend its answer to deny ownership of the land where the accident occurred (see, Fisher v Braun, 227 AD2d 586). However, because the City failed to establish a prima facie case that it did not own the land where the accident occurred, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City should have been denied. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 6, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for leave to amend its answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City of New York, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the City of New York which was for leave to amend its answer to deny ownership of the land where the accident occurred (see, Fisher v Braun, 227 AD2d 586). However, because the City failed to establish a prima facie case that it did not own the land where the accident occurred, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City should have been denied. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 543, 731 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huttner-v-queens-college-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack