Nelson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nelson v. City of New York

7 A.D.3d 589, 775 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedMay 10, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 589 (Nelson 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

Nelson v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 589, 775 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered May 23, 2003, which, upon renewal, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied by prior order of the same court dated December 9, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this trip-and-fall action by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to [590]*590state at her deposition what caused her to fall (see Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393 [2000]; Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Luciano 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered May 23, 2003, which, upon renewal, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied by prior order of the same court dated December 9, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this trip-and-fall action by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to [590]*590state at her deposition what caused her to fall (see Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393 [2000]; Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 589, 775 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack