Rapps v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rapps v. City of New York

75 A.D.3d 500, 903 N.Y.S.2d 746

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

DecidedJuly 6, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.3d 500 (Rapps 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

Rapps v. City of New York, 75 A.D.3d 500, 903 N.Y.S.2d 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York and Columbus Construction Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 16, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants City of New York and Columbus Construction Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

In response to the establishment by the defendants City of New York and Columbus Construction Corp. (hereinafter the movants) of their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the movants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, 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 defendants City of New York and Columbus Construction Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 16, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants City of New York and Columbus Construction Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

In response to the establishment by the defendants City of New York and Columbus Construction Corp. (hereinafter the movants) of their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the movants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.3d 500, 903 N.Y.S.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapps-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack