Kadaa v. Kadaa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kadaa v. Kadaa

80 A.D.3d 728, 915 N.Y.S.2d 862

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.3d 728 (Kadaa v. Kadaa) 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

Kadaa v. Kadaa, 80 A.D.3d 728, 915 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 7, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as, under the circumstances, the defendant did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff (see Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781 [1976]; Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth., 136 AD2d 196 [1988]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Lott, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 7, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as, under the circumstances, the defendant did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff (see Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781 [1976]; Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth., 136 AD2d 196 [1988]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 728, 915 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kadaa-v-kadaa-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack