Jackson v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

306 A.D.2d 381, 760 N.Y.S.2d 867

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 381 (Jackson v. South Nassau Communities Hospital) 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

Jackson v. South Nassau Communities Hospital, 306 A.D.2d 381, 760 N.Y.S.2d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated April 18, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for further discovery.

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

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that it neither breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, nor proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries, the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted and the cross motion denied. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Mastro, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated April 18, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for further discovery.

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

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that it neither breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, nor proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries, the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted and the cross motion denied. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 381, 760 N.Y.S.2d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-south-nassau-communities-hospital-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack