Mazzamuto v. Harilai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazzamuto v. Harilai

226 A.D.2d 352, 640 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420

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

DecidedApril 1, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 352 (Mazzamuto v. Harilai) 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

Mazzamuto v. Harilai, 226 A.D.2d 352, 640 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated November 22, 1994, which granted the [353]*353defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint since the plaintiff failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the defendant created the defective condition on the public sidewalk or caused the defect to occur because of some special use (see, Nuesi v City of New York, 205 AD2d 370; Noto v Mermaid Rest, 156 AD2d 435, 436). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, 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 (Huttner, J.), dated November 22, 1994, which granted the [353]*353defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint since the plaintiff failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the defendant created the defective condition on the public sidewalk or caused the defect to occur because of some special use (see, Nuesi v City of New York, 205 AD2d 370; Noto v Mermaid Rest, 156 AD2d 435, 436). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 352, 640 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzamuto-v-harilai-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack