Peppas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peppas v. City of New York

6 A.D.3d 596, 774 N.Y.S.2d 798

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

DecidedApril 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 596 (Peppas 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

Peppas v. City of New York, 6 A.D.3d 596, 774 N.Y.S.2d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated January 27, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) with leave to renew after the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the Supreme Court to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with leave to renew after the completion of discovery was a provident exercise of its discretion (see Destin v New York City Tr. Auth., 303 AD2d 713 [2003]; Rajan v Insler, 300 AD2d 463 [2002]). Further, we note that the “LIRR Engineer Department’s Bridge Reference Manual” abstract which the plaintiffs submitted as proof that the defendant owned the site of the accident was not evidence in admissible form as a business record (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Gregory M., 184 AD2d 252, 254 [1992], affd 82 NY2d 588 [1993]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Mastro, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated January 27, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) with leave to renew after the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the Supreme Court to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with leave to renew after the completion of discovery was a provident exercise of its discretion (see Destin v New York City Tr. Auth., 303 AD2d 713 [2003]; Rajan v Insler, 300 AD2d 463 [2002]). Further, we note that the “LIRR Engineer Department’s Bridge Reference Manual” abstract which the plaintiffs submitted as proof that the defendant owned the site of the accident was not evidence in admissible form as a business record (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Gregory M., 184 AD2d 252, 254 [1992], affd 82 NY2d 588 [1993]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 596, 774 N.Y.S.2d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peppas-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack