Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

254 A.D.2d 269, 678 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10050

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 269 (Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority) 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

Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, 254 A.D.2d 269, 678 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated August 28, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants breached a duty to her or that the breaches alleged were a proximate cause of her injuries (see, Miller v Fernan, 73 NY2d 844; Shahzaman v Green Bus Lines Co., 214 AD2d 722; Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, affd 72 NY2d 888). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, 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, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated August 28, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants breached a duty to her or that the breaches alleged were a proximate cause of her injuries (see, Miller v Fernan, 73 NY2d 844; Shahzaman v Green Bus Lines Co., 214 AD2d 722; Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, affd 72 NY2d 888). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 269, 678 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-metropolitan-suburban-bus-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack