Morales v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. City of New York

101 A.D.3d 623, 955 N.Y.2d 866

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 623 (Morales 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

Morales v. City of New York, 101 A.D.3d 623, 955 N.Y.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence submitted by CSC Holdings, Cablevision and CFG that they had not received any complaints regarding work performed in connection with the installation of a cable conduit [624]*624in 1992 was uncontroverted. The inspection conducted by plaintiffs expert, approximately 14 years after the work was performed, did not constitute probative evidence of negligence by the movants, as his inferences as to the quality of the work performed by these defendants were speculative. Because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the liability of the movants, the motions for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

The evidence submitted by CSC Holdings, Cablevision and CFG that they had not received any complaints regarding work performed in connection with the installation of a cable conduit [624]*624in 1992 was uncontroverted. The inspection conducted by plaintiffs expert, approximately 14 years after the work was performed, did not constitute probative evidence of negligence by the movants, as his inferences as to the quality of the work performed by these defendants were speculative. Because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the liability of the movants, the motions for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 623, 955 N.Y.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.