Johnson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. City of New York

18 A.D.3d 272, 794 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5198

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

DecidedMay 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 272 (Johnson v. City of New York) 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

Johnson v. City of New York, 18 A.D.3d 272, 794 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered December 17, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants submitted sufficient proof of their lack of notice of tortious propensities of the nonemployee volunteer to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment. Plaintiffs failed to present evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had notice of Tony Sanchez’s propensity to commit the crime, or whether the alleged earlier negligent hiring of Sanchez was the proximate cause of the injuries (see Gomez v City of New York, 304 AD2d 374 [2003]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered December 17, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants submitted sufficient proof of their lack of notice of tortious propensities of the nonemployee volunteer to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment. Plaintiffs failed to present evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had notice of Tony Sanchez’s propensity to commit the crime, or whether the alleged earlier negligent hiring of Sanchez was the proximate cause of the injuries (see Gomez v City of New York, 304 AD2d 374 [2003]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 272, 794 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack