Raphan v. Woodbury Jewish Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raphan v. Woodbury Jewish Center, Inc.

306 A.D.2d 456, 761 N.Y.S.2d 842

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 456 (Raphan v. Woodbury Jewish Center, Inc.) 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

Raphan v. Woodbury Jewish Center, Inc., 306 A.D.2d 456, 761 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant property owner’s prima facie showing that it provided a reasonably safe means of ingress to and egress from its premises (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474 [1998]; Hilf v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 245 AD2d 261 [1997]), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, 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, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant property owner’s prima facie showing that it provided a reasonably safe means of ingress to and egress from its premises (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474 [1998]; Hilf v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 245 AD2d 261 [1997]), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 456, 761 N.Y.S.2d 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raphan-v-woodbury-jewish-center-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack