Pryor v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pryor v. City of New York

63 A.D.3d 508, 879 N.Y.S.2d 716

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

DecidedJune 11, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 508 (Pryor 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

Pryor v. City of New York, 63 A.D.3d 508, 879 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered April 11, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained as the result of a trip and fall over an exposed baseplate for a sidewalk bollard, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it performed no construction work at or near the area where plaintiff fell. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The testimony of plaintiffs expert as to the cause of the accident was speculative and without support in the record, and, as such, insufficient to support a finding that respondent performed any work where plaintiff fell (see Reyes v Kimball, Div. of Kimball Intl. Mktg., 269 AD2d 156, 157 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Nardelli, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered April 11, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained as the result of a trip and fall over an exposed baseplate for a sidewalk bollard, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it performed no construction work at or near the area where plaintiff fell. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The testimony of plaintiffs expert as to the cause of the accident was speculative and without support in the record, and, as such, insufficient to support a finding that respondent performed any work where plaintiff fell (see Reyes v Kimball, Div. of Kimball Intl. Mktg., 269 AD2d 156, 157 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Nardelli, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 508, 879 N.Y.S.2d 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack