Pisanelli v. Town of East Fishkill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pisanelli v. Town of East Fishkill

23 A.D.3d 446, 803 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 446 (Pisanelli v. Town of East Fishkill) 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

Pisanelli v. Town of East Fishkill, 23 A.D.3d 446, 803 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated October 20, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant’s showing of entitlement to sum[447]*447mary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 437-440 [1986]; Steward v Town of Clarkstown, 224 AD2d 405 [1996]; cf. Siegel v City of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 488-489 [1997]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated October 20, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant’s showing of entitlement to sum[447]*447mary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 437-440 [1986]; Steward v Town of Clarkstown, 224 AD2d 405 [1996]; cf. Siegel v City of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 488-489 [1997]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 446, 803 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pisanelli-v-town-of-east-fishkill-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack