Ruiz v. Peralta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. Peralta

306 A.D.2d 150, 760 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199

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

DecidedJune 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 150 (Ruiz v. Peralta) 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

Ruiz v. Peralta, 306 A.D.2d 150, 760 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.), entered March 4, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a malfunctioning traffic light that defendant-appellant was under contract with defendant City of New York to maintain, insofar as appealed from, denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the City’s cross claim as against it, with leave to renew upon completion of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of multiple repairs on the subject traffic light performed by appellant in the eight months before the accident warrants denial of its motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal upon completion of disclosure (CPLR 3212 [f]; Ludwig v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 305 AD2d 124 [2003]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.), entered March 4, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a malfunctioning traffic light that defendant-appellant was under contract with defendant City of New York to maintain, insofar as appealed from, denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the City’s cross claim as against it, with leave to renew upon completion of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of multiple repairs on the subject traffic light performed by appellant in the eight months before the accident warrants denial of its motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal upon completion of disclosure (CPLR 3212 [f]; Ludwig v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 305 AD2d 124 [2003]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 150, 760 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-peralta-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack