McQuade v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McQuade v. City of Poughkeepsie

245 A.D.2d 552, 666 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13356

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 552 (McQuade v. City of Poughkeepsie) 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

McQuade v. City of Poughkeepsie, 245 A.D.2d 552, 666 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered November 7, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“After examination of the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the ‘time, place and circumstance’ of the injury (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274)” (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978), we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a dangerous condition (see, e.g., Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). Since the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the court properly granted the motion.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered November 7, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“After examination of the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the ‘time, place and circumstance’ of the injury (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274)” (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978), we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a dangerous condition (see, e.g., Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). Since the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the court properly granted the motion.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 552, 666 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcquade-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack