Mejia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mejia v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 453, 708 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 453 (Mejia v. City of New York) 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

Mejia v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 453, 708 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant 953 Manhattan Food Corporation, d/b/a C-Town Supermarket, and the defendant Tina Angeline [454]*454separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Tina Angeline for summary judgment, as she failed to meet her initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The court also properly denied the motion of the defendant 953 Manhattan Food Corporation, d/b/a C-Town Supermarket, for summary judgment, as issues of fact remain as to whether its snow and ice removal efforts made the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff Moisés Mejia fell more hazardous (see, Verdino v Alexandrou, 253 AD2d 553; Reidy v EZE Equip. Co., 234 AD2d 593; Oley v Village of Massapequa Park, 198 AD2d 272). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 defendant 953 Manhattan Food Corporation, d/b/a C-Town Supermarket, and the defendant Tina Angeline [454]*454separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Tina Angeline for summary judgment, as she failed to meet her initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The court also properly denied the motion of the defendant 953 Manhattan Food Corporation, d/b/a C-Town Supermarket, for summary judgment, as issues of fact remain as to whether its snow and ice removal efforts made the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff Moisés Mejia fell more hazardous (see, Verdino v Alexandrou, 253 AD2d 553; Reidy v EZE Equip. Co., 234 AD2d 593; Oley v Village of Massapequa Park, 198 AD2d 272). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 453, 708 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejia-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack