Nowaski v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nowaski v. City of New York

19 A.D.3d 467, 796 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6696

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

DecidedJune 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 467 (Nowaski 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

Nowaski v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 467, 796 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered March 15, 2004, as, upon the granting of the motion of the defendant Citibank, N.A., pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as a matter of law, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant Citibank, N.A., and against him, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant Citibank, N.A., made the sidewalk upon which he allegedly slipped and fell more hazardous by improper or negligent snow removal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant (see Piona v City of New York, 289 AD2d 215, 216 [2001]; Reidy v EZE Equip. Co., 234 AD2d 593, 594 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered March 15, 2004, as, upon the granting of the motion of the defendant Citibank, N.A., pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as a matter of law, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant Citibank, N.A., and against him, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant Citibank, N.A., made the sidewalk upon which he allegedly slipped and fell more hazardous by improper or negligent snow removal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant (see Piona v City of New York, 289 AD2d 215, 216 [2001]; Reidy v EZE Equip. Co., 234 AD2d 593, 594 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 467, 796 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowaski-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack