Juliano v. WSH Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Juliano v. WSH Realty Corp.

8 A.D.3d 342, 777 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7798

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

DecidedJune 7, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 342 (Juliano v. WSH Realty Corp.) 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

Juliano v. WSH Realty Corp., 8 A.D.3d 342, 777 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J), dated August 15, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated August 15, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion, nor did she allege facts sufficient to warrant summary judgment in her favor. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, 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 (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J), dated August 15, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated August 15, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion, nor did she allege facts sufficient to warrant summary judgment in her favor. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 342, 777 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juliano-v-wsh-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2004.