Pisapia v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pisapia v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

16 A.D.3d 568, 792 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2981

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 568 (Pisapia v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue) 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

Pisapia v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue, 16 A.D.3d 568, 792 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for battery, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J), dated July 9, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for battery.

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

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for battery (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for battery, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J), dated July 9, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for battery.

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

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for battery (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 568, 792 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pisapia-v-incorporated-village-of-patchogue-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack