Mullaney v. Koenig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullaney v. Koenig

21 A.D.3d 939, 801 N.Y.S.2d 343

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 939 (Mullaney v. Koenig) 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

Mullaney v. Koenig, 21 A.D.3d 939, 801 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated February 13, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is proper for this Court, on appeal, to consider the defendants’ contention that the record contains no evidence of a defective or dangerous condition existing on their premises at the time of the accident (see Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730 [1989]). The defendants established a prima facie case that no dangerous or defective condition existed on their premises at the time of the accident (see Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion. Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated February 13, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is proper for this Court, on appeal, to consider the defendants’ contention that the record contains no evidence of a defective or dangerous condition existing on their premises at the time of the accident (see Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730 [1989]). The defendants established a prima facie case that no dangerous or defective condition existed on their premises at the time of the accident (see Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion. Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 939, 801 N.Y.S.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullaney-v-koenig-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack