Listopad v. Sherwood Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Listopad v. Sherwood Equities, Inc.

52 A.D.3d 300, 858 N.Y.S.2d 600

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

DecidedJune 10, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 300 (Listopad v. Sherwood Equities, Inc.) 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

Listopad v. Sherwood Equities, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 300, 858 N.Y.S.2d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 14, 2007, which, in this personal injury action, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As there is no evidence linking defendants to the plastic sheeting that allegedly caused plaintiffs fall, a jury would be left to base its verdict on speculation, rather than logical inferences (Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]).

The court properly declined to consider plaintiffs supplemental bill of particulars alleging for the first time that her fall was caused by poor lighting (see Boland v Koppelman, 251 AD2d 176 [1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 14, 2007, which, in this personal injury action, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As there is no evidence linking defendants to the plastic sheeting that allegedly caused plaintiffs fall, a jury would be left to base its verdict on speculation, rather than logical inferences (Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]).

The court properly declined to consider plaintiffs supplemental bill of particulars alleging for the first time that her fall was caused by poor lighting (see Boland v Koppelman, 251 AD2d 176 [1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 300, 858 N.Y.S.2d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/listopad-v-sherwood-equities-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack