Peshniak v. Kuritzky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peshniak v. Kuritzky

266 A.D.2d 270, 698 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13062

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 270 (Peshniak v. Kuritzky) 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

Peshniak v. Kuritzky, 266 A.D.2d 270, 698 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated July 21,1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Nicholas Peshniak allegedly sustained injuries when he tripped and fell on a public sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants’ papers, including the transcript of the deposition testimony of the defendant L. M. Steinhart, made out a prima facie case that the defendants did not create the condition or use the sidewalk for a special use (see, Oquendo v City of New York, 238 AD2d 391). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted only an attorney’s affirmation which failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated July 21,1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Nicholas Peshniak allegedly sustained injuries when he tripped and fell on a public sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants’ papers, including the transcript of the deposition testimony of the defendant L. M. Steinhart, made out a prima facie case that the defendants did not create the condition or use the sidewalk for a special use (see, Oquendo v City of New York, 238 AD2d 391). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted only an attorney’s affirmation which failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 270, 698 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peshniak-v-kuritzky-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack