Keys v. Triangle Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keys v. Triangle Maintenance Corp.

2 A.D.3d 496, 767 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 496 (Keys v. Triangle Maintenance 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

Keys v. Triangle Maintenance Corp., 2 A.D.3d 496, 767 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated November 18, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 (Schmidt, J.), dated November 18, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 496, 767 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keys-v-triangle-maintenance-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack