Jordan-Hunte v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jordan-Hunte v. City of New York

104 A.D.3d 818, 960 N.Y.S.2d 653

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 818 (Jordan-Hunte 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

Jordan-Hunte v. City of New York, 104 A.D.3d 818, 960 N.Y.S.2d 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated October 14, 2011, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The City failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether it received prior written notice of the alleged defect that purportedly caused the plaintiff Eileen Jordan-Hunte’s fall (see Sanatass v Town of N. Hempstead, 64 AD3d 695 [2009]; Bonilla v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 49 AD3d 788, 789 [2008]). Since the City failed to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Chambers and Roman, 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, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated October 14, 2011, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The City failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether it received prior written notice of the alleged defect that purportedly caused the plaintiff Eileen Jordan-Hunte’s fall (see Sanatass v Town of N. Hempstead, 64 AD3d 695 [2009]; Bonilla v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 49 AD3d 788, 789 [2008]). Since the City failed to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 818, 960 N.Y.S.2d 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-hunte-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack