Kaparos v. Diner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaparos v. Diner

260 A.D.2d 605, 687 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 605 (Kaparos v. Diner) 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

Kaparos v. Diner, 260 A.D.2d 605, 687 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judg[606]*606ment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) and denied the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to compel additional discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell on an uneven surface outside of the defendant diner. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, including the dimensions, characteristics, and location of the alleged defect, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Perrotta v Jamal, 245 AD2d 357).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 (Gerges, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judg[606]*606ment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) and denied the plaintiffs cross motion, inter alia, to compel additional discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell on an uneven surface outside of the defendant diner. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, including the dimensions, characteristics, and location of the alleged defect, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Perrotta v Jamal, 245 AD2d 357).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 605, 687 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaparos-v-diner-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack