Kuller v. Potashner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kuller v. Potashner

268 A.D.2d 563, 702 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 944

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 563 (Kuller v. Potashner) 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

Kuller v. Potashner, 268 A.D.2d 563, 702 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated November 24, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any repairs made by the defendants to the subject sidewalk caused or contributed to her trip and fall (see generally, Capobianco v Mari, 267 AD2d 191; see, Witte v Incorporated Vil. of Port Washington N., 114 AD2d 359). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated November 24, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any repairs made by the defendants to the subject sidewalk caused or contributed to her trip and fall (see generally, Capobianco v Mari, 267 AD2d 191; see, Witte v Incorporated Vil. of Port Washington N., 114 AD2d 359). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 563, 702 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuller-v-potashner-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack