Rigney v. Healy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rigney v. Healy

271 A.D.2d 426, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3806

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 426 (Rigney v. Healy) 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

Rigney v. Healy, 271 A.D.2d 426, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated April 21, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff, after the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the inadequate lighting condition alleged by the plaintiff and whether that condition was a proximate cause of her injuries (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686; Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359). Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated April 21, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff, after the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the inadequate lighting condition alleged by the plaintiff and whether that condition was a proximate cause of her injuries (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686; Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359). Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 426, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rigney-v-healy-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack