Rosa v. Southren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosa v. Southren

8 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9178

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 648 (Rosa v. Southren) 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

Rosa v. Southren, 8 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 29, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained in a fall in the entrance vestibule of the defendant’s office. However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412 [2003]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Schoen v King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 AD2d 486 [2002]; Boehme v Edgar Fabrics, 248 AD2d 344 [1998]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Cozier and Skelos, 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, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 29, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained in a fall in the entrance vestibule of the defendant’s office. However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412 [2003]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Schoen v King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 AD2d 486 [2002]; Boehme v Edgar Fabrics, 248 AD2d 344 [1998]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-v-southren-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack