Patten v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patten v. City of New York

277 A.D.2d 296, 715 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11694

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 296 (Patten 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

Patten v. City of New York, 277 A.D.2d 296, 715 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third- and fourth-party defendant New York Paving, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 28, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment to . dismiss all claims and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The .Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The proof submitted on the motion showed, inter alia, the existence of a factual question as to whether the appellant was responsible, at least in part, for the complained-of condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Florio, 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 third- and fourth-party defendant New York Paving, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 28, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment to . dismiss all claims and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The .Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The proof submitted on the motion showed, inter alia, the existence of a factual question as to whether the appellant was responsible, at least in part, for the complained-of condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 296, 715 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patten-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack