Sanchez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. City of New York

305 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5339

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 487 (Sanchez v. City of New York) 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

Sanchez v. City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Paul’s Auto Maintenance appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated February 15, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell on a sidewalk abutting the appellant’s service station. The appellant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed that she did not know what caused her to fall (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]; Brown-Phifer v Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 AD2d 564 [2001]; Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393 [2000]; Barretta v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 278 AD2d 262, 263 [2000]; Robinson v Lupo, 261 AD2d 525 [1999]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The affidavit submitted in opposition to the appellant’s motion was insufficient, tailored to raise a triable issue of fact, and merely raised a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff’s earlier admission that she did not know the cause of her fall (see Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, supra; Lara v Saint John’s Univ., 289 AD2d 457 [2001]; Novoni v La Parma Corp., supra; Barretta v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, supra). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Crane, 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 defendant Paul’s Auto Maintenance appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated February 15, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell on a sidewalk abutting the appellant’s service station. The appellant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed that she did not know what caused her to fall (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]; Brown-Phifer v Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 AD2d 564 [2001]; Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393 [2000]; Barretta v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 278 AD2d 262, 263 [2000]; Robinson v Lupo, 261 AD2d 525 [1999]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The affidavit submitted in opposition to the appellant’s motion was insufficient, tailored to raise a triable issue of fact, and merely raised a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff’s earlier admission that she did not know the cause of her fall (see Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, supra; Lara v Saint John’s Univ., 289 AD2d 457 [2001]; Novoni v La Parma Corp., supra; Barretta v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, supra). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack