Perez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. City of New York

25 A.D.3d 772, 807 N.Y.S.2d 577

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 772 (Perez 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

Perez v. City of New York, 25 A.D.3d 772, 807 N.Y.S.2d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, EK.L. Corp., doing business as Chung Kiwa Restaurant, the defendant in action No. 2, appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered March 9, 2005, which, inter alia, denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2. The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question (see Prince v DiBenedetto, 189 AD2d 757, 759 [1993]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, EK.L. Corp., doing business as Chung Kiwa Restaurant, the defendant in action No. 2, appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered March 9, 2005, which, inter alia, denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2. The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question (see Prince v DiBenedetto, 189 AD2d 757, 759 [1993]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 772, 807 N.Y.S.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack