Molina v. Sercia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molina v. Sercia

290 A.D.2d 425, 736 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 425 (Molina v. Sercia) 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

Molina v. Sercia, 290 A.D.2d 425, 736 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), entered March 19, 2001, which granted the defendant’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. The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The defendant had neither a statutory nor a common-law duty to provide window guards in the subject apartment, since no one under 10 years of age resided there (see, Deer v DiPiazza, 225 AD2d 514; Costanzo v New York City Hous. Auth., 158 AD2d 576; Ramos v 600 W. 183rd St., 155 [426]*426AD2d 333). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, 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, Queens County (Berke, J.), entered March 19, 2001, which granted the defendant’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. The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The defendant had neither a statutory nor a common-law duty to provide window guards in the subject apartment, since no one under 10 years of age resided there (see, Deer v DiPiazza, 225 AD2d 514; Costanzo v New York City Hous. Auth., 158 AD2d 576; Ramos v 600 W. 183rd St., 155 [426]*426AD2d 333). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 425, 736 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molina-v-sercia-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack