Morgan v. New York City Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. New York City Police Department

294 A.D.2d 416, 741 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896

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

DecidedMay 13, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 416 (Morgan v. New York City Police Department) 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

Morgan v. New York City Police Department, 294 A.D.2d 416, 741 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 19, 2001, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant SOS Security, Incorporated, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As determined in a prior appeal in this case (see Morgan v New York City Police Dept., 282 AD2d 583), the plaintiff’s conduct was an intervening cause of the attack upon her. Thus, her conduct severed any liability of the respondent security company. The case of Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp. (96 NY2d 875), decided after our determination in the prior appeal, is factually distinguishable and does not require a different result. In any event, assuming that the respondent owed a duty to the plaintiff, an issue which we need not reach, the respondent established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it exercised reasonable care in performing its security services. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondent was negligent (cf. Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., supra).

The plaintiff’s contention that the respondent’s motion was premature is without merit. Altman, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Cozier, 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, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 19, 2001, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant SOS Security, Incorporated, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As determined in a prior appeal in this case (see Morgan v New York City Police Dept., 282 AD2d 583), the plaintiff’s conduct was an intervening cause of the attack upon her. Thus, her conduct severed any liability of the respondent security company. The case of Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp. (96 NY2d 875), decided after our determination in the prior appeal, is factually distinguishable and does not require a different result. In any event, assuming that the respondent owed a duty to the plaintiff, an issue which we need not reach, the respondent established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it exercised reasonable care in performing its security services. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondent was negligent (cf. Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., supra).

The plaintiff’s contention that the respondent’s motion was premature is without merit. Altman, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 416, 741 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-new-york-city-police-department-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack