O'Keefe v. Valente Industries Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Keefe v. Valente Industries Corp.

266 A.D.2d 192, 697 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 1999·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated September 24, 1998, as granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

[193]*193The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, as neither defendant owned, occupied, controlled, or made special use of the property on which the plaintiff was allegedly injured (see, Allen v Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 AD2d 528; Bruhns v Antonelli, 255 AD2d 478; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278; see also, Kaufman v Silver, 90 NY2d 204). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated September 24, 1998, as granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

[193]*193The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, as neither defendant owned, occupied, controlled, or made special use of the property on which the plaintiff was allegedly injured (see, Allen v Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 AD2d 528; Bruhns v Antonelli, 255 AD2d 478; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278; see also, Kaufman v Silver, 90 NY2d 204). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

O'Keefe v. Valente Industries Corp., 266 A.D.2d 192, 697 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

266 A.D.2d 192 (O'Keefe v. Valente Industries Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related