Reyes v. Panichi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reyes v. Panichi

232 A.D.2d 542, 648 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10444

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 542 (Reyes v. Panichi) 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

Reyes v. Panichi, 232 A.D.2d 542, 648 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 4, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the damages he sought to recover for the injuries he allegedly sustained after being struck by falling bales of corrugated cardboard were recoverable on any theory pleaded against the defendant (see, Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020; Vinicio v Marriott Corp., 217 AD2d 656). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 4, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the damages he sought to recover for the injuries he allegedly sustained after being struck by falling bales of corrugated cardboard were recoverable on any theory pleaded against the defendant (see, Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020; Vinicio v Marriott Corp., 217 AD2d 656). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 542, 648 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-panichi-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack