Morrison v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrison v. City of Poughkeepsie

68 A.D.3d 731, 888 N.Y.2d 901

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 731 (Morrison v. City of Poughkeepsie) 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

Morrison v. City of Poughkeepsie, 68 A.D.3d 731, 888 N.Y.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

On May 29, 2004 the injured plaintiff William C. Morrison, Sr., was standing on the open tailgate of a pickup truck and discarding unwanted household items into a pit located at the City of Poughkeepsie Transfer Station (hereinafter the Transfer Station). He allegedly was injured when, in the process of unloading a wooden door, he lost his balance and fell into the pit. He and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action against [732]*732the defendants, City of Poughkeepsie and Department of Public Works of the City of Poughkeepsie. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The evidence established that the Transfer Station had been constructed in accordance with existing law. Moreover, the alleged negligence of the defendants in failing to provide a guardrail around the unloading platform was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs accident (see Plowden v Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d 659 [2007]; Tutunjian v Cove Landing on Sound Homeowners Assn., Inc., 38 AD3d 531 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

On May 29, 2004 the injured plaintiff William C. Morrison, Sr., was standing on the open tailgate of a pickup truck and discarding unwanted household items into a pit located at the City of Poughkeepsie Transfer Station (hereinafter the Transfer Station). He allegedly was injured when, in the process of unloading a wooden door, he lost his balance and fell into the pit. He and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action against [732]*732the defendants, City of Poughkeepsie and Department of Public Works of the City of Poughkeepsie. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The evidence established that the Transfer Station had been constructed in accordance with existing law. Moreover, the alleged negligence of the defendants in failing to provide a guardrail around the unloading platform was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs accident (see Plowden v Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d 659 [2007]; Tutunjian v Cove Landing on Sound Homeowners Assn., Inc., 38 AD3d 531 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 731, 888 N.Y.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack