Mitchell v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. New York City Housing Authority

267 A.D.2d 285, 699 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 285 (Mitchell v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Mitchell v. New York City Housing Authority, 267 A.D.2d 285, 699 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated February 3, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints. After the defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial of the actions (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated February 3, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints. After the defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial of the actions (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 285, 699 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack