Jones v. City of Albany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. City of Albany

128 A.D.2d 1017, 513 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44661

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 1017 (Jones v. City of Albany) 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

Jones v. City of Albany, 128 A.D.2d 1017, 513 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered September 24, 1986 in Albany County, which denied defendant Albany City School District’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained while he was attempting to do a "flip” from the top of a chain link fence and the fence, which surrounded a running track adjacent to Albany High School in the City of Albany, collapsed. Plaintiff and a friend, who were then students at Albany High School, had left the school cafeteria during their lunch period to practice gymnastics on a grassy area near the track. Defendant Albany City School District (hereinafter defendant) moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against it. Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the only affidavit in support of the motion was that of defendant’s counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the events. Defendant appeals from the order.

Since defendant submitted the necessary copies of the pleadings and a transcript of plaintiff’s examination before trial along with the attorney’s affidavit, Supreme Court erred in failing to rule on the merits of defendant’s motion (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093; Bradt v John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 98 AD2d 886, 887). As to the merits, defendant contends that plaintiff’s conduct and resulting injuries were not reasonably foreseeable, but we conclude that the motion papers raise questions of fact on this and other relevant issues (see, Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26). The order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered September 24, 1986 in Albany County, which denied defendant Albany City School District’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained while he was attempting to do a "flip” from the top of a chain link fence and the fence, which surrounded a running track adjacent to Albany High School in the City of Albany, collapsed. Plaintiff and a friend, who were then students at Albany High School, had left the school cafeteria during their lunch period to practice gymnastics on a grassy area near the track. Defendant Albany City School District (hereinafter defendant) moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against it. Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the only affidavit in support of the motion was that of defendant’s counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the events. Defendant appeals from the order.

Since defendant submitted the necessary copies of the pleadings and a transcript of plaintiff’s examination before trial along with the attorney’s affidavit, Supreme Court erred in failing to rule on the merits of defendant’s motion (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093; Bradt v John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 98 AD2d 886, 887). As to the merits, defendant contends that plaintiff’s conduct and resulting injuries were not reasonably foreseeable, but we conclude that the motion papers raise questions of fact on this and other relevant issues (see, Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26). The order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 1017, 513 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-city-of-albany-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack