Newman v. Gobes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Gobes

245 A.D.2d 279, 665 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12063

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 279 (Newman v. Gobes) 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

Newman v. Gobes, 245 A.D.2d 279, 665 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 22, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell as she descended a ramp located on the defendant’s property. The plaintiff contends that the ramp was improperly designed and constructed and was in violation of the local building code.

The defendant demonstrated his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). In response, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence to show the existence of triable issues of fact. Under the circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, 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 (Doyle, J.), dated July 22, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell as she descended a ramp located on the defendant’s property. The plaintiff contends that the ramp was improperly designed and constructed and was in violation of the local building code.

The defendant demonstrated his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). In response, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence to show the existence of triable issues of fact. Under the circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 279, 665 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-gobes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack