Marro v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marro v. State

44 A.D.3d 913, 843 N.Y.S.2d 522

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 913 (Marro v. State) 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

Marro v. State, 44 A.D.3d 913, 843 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated July 31, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The State met its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment by proffering the plain and unambiguous language of the stipulation that insulated the State from liability except for its “independent, active negligent acts” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Since a claim of negligent supervision does not involve “active negligent acts,” the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would have warranted the denial of summary judgment to the State (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Dillon, 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 personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated July 31, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The State met its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment by proffering the plain and unambiguous language of the stipulation that insulated the State from liability except for its “independent, active negligent acts” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Since a claim of negligent supervision does not involve “active negligent acts,” the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would have warranted the denial of summary judgment to the State (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 913, 843 N.Y.S.2d 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marro-v-state-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack