Kunder v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kunder v. New York City Transit Authority

271 A.D.2d 574, 707 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 574 (Kunder v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Kunder v. New York City Transit Authority, 271 A.D.2d 574, 707 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated May 20, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant made a prima facie showing of the absence of either actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect, establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 (Bruno, J.), dated May 20, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant made a prima facie showing of the absence of either actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect, establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 574, 707 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunder-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack