Kisloff v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kisloff v. State

248 A.D.2d 680, 670 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 1998·No. Claim No. 92299·Published

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for negligence, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), entered March 4, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The submissions made by the defendant State of New York established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claim (see, e.g., Winegrad v New York [681] Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Zuckerman v New York City, 49 NY2d 557; Helmbrecht v Krauthamer, 239 AD2d 316). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the State submitted probative documentary evidence, including relevant correspondence, affidavits, and the deposition testimony of an engineer employed by the City of New Rochelle, who testified that the City was responsible for maintenance of the damaged sidewalk where the claimant allegedly fell. Since the materials submitted in opposition to the motion were insufficient to create triable issues of fact, the Court of Claims properly granted the State’s motion for summary judgment (see, Roth v Spletzer, 236 AD2d 599).

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a claim to recover damages for negligence, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), entered March 4, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The submissions made by the defendant State of New York established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claim (see, e.g., Winegrad v New York [681] Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Zuckerman v New York City, 49 NY2d 557; Helmbrecht v Krauthamer, 239 AD2d 316). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the State submitted probative documentary evidence, including relevant correspondence, affidavits, and the deposition testimony of an engineer employed by the City of New Rochelle, who testified that the City was responsible for maintenance of the damaged sidewalk where the claimant allegedly fell. Since the materials submitted in opposition to the motion were insufficient to create triable issues of fact, the Court of Claims properly granted the State’s motion for summary judgment (see, Roth v Spletzer, 236 AD2d 599).

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Kisloff v. State, 248 A.D.2d 680, 670 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 680 (Kisloff v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related