Perrotta v. Jamal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrotta v. Jamal

245 A.D.2d 357, 666 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12789

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 357 (Perrotta v. Jamal) 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

Perrotta v. Jamal, 245 A.D.2d 357, 666 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 10, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendants Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. and Getty Petroleum Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Luella Perrotta was allegedly injured when she [358]*358tripped and fell on uneven pavement at a gas station. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, including the dimensions, characteristics, and location of the alleged defect, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Krausman, 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, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 10, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendants Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. and Getty Petroleum Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Luella Perrotta was allegedly injured when she [358]*358tripped and fell on uneven pavement at a gas station. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, including the dimensions, characteristics, and location of the alleged defect, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 357, 666 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrotta-v-jamal-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack