McCord v. Father & Son Auto Care, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCord v. Father & Son Auto Care, Inc.

295 A.D.2d 486, 744 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6469

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 486 (McCord v. Father & Son Auto Care, 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

McCord v. Father & Son Auto Care, Inc., 295 A.D.2d 486, 744 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated June 6, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice at the defendants’ gaso[487]*487line and service station. The defendants established a prima facie case entitling them to summary judgment by submitting unrefuted evidence that the accident occurred during a freezing rainstorm (see Porcari v S.E.M. Mgt. Corp., 184 AD2d 556; Newsome v Cservak, 130 AD2d 637). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of raising a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, 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, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated June 6, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice at the defendants’ gaso[487]*487line and service station. The defendants established a prima facie case entitling them to summary judgment by submitting unrefuted evidence that the accident occurred during a freezing rainstorm (see Porcari v S.E.M. Mgt. Corp., 184 AD2d 556; Newsome v Cservak, 130 AD2d 637). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of raising a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 486, 744 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccord-v-father-son-auto-care-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack