O'Neill v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. New York City Housing Authority

14 A.D.3d 678, 788 N.Y.S.2d 615, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 857

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 678 (O'Neill v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

O'Neill v. New York City Housing Authority, 14 A.D.3d 678, 788 N.Y.S.2d 615, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 20, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law § 205-a cause of action by demonstrating that no predicate violation existed to support the claim (see Cibelli v Episcopal Diocese of N.Y., 298 AD2d 485 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Leslie v Splish Splash at Adventureland, 1 AD3d 320, 321 [2003]; Krash v Bishop-Sanzari, J.V., 309 AD2d 788, 789 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 20, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law § 205-a cause of action by demonstrating that no predicate violation existed to support the claim (see Cibelli v Episcopal Diocese of N.Y., 298 AD2d 485 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Leslie v Splish Splash at Adventureland, 1 AD3d 320, 321 [2003]; Krash v Bishop-Sanzari, J.V., 309 AD2d 788, 789 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 678, 788 N.Y.S.2d 615, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack