Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc. v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 587, 709 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6071

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 587 (Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc. v. City of New York) 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

Linden Towers Cooperative 4, Inc. v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 587, 709 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 5, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact that the flooding that damaged its property was the result of the defendant’s negligence. Evidence of flooding caused by the backflow of a sewer system, standing alone, is insufficient to maintain an action against a municipality to recover damages for injury to property (see, Smith v Mayor of City of N. Y., 66 NY 295, 296-297; Biernacki v Village of Ravena, 245 AD2d 656, 657). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller 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 injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 5, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact that the flooding that damaged its property was the result of the defendant’s negligence. Evidence of flooding caused by the backflow of a sewer system, standing alone, is insufficient to maintain an action against a municipality to recover damages for injury to property (see, Smith v Mayor of City of N. Y., 66 NY 295, 296-297; Biernacki v Village of Ravena, 245 AD2d 656, 657). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 587, 709 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linden-towers-cooperative-4-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack