Schindler v. Filene's Basement, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schindler v. Filene's Basement, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 486, 756 N.Y.S.2d 450

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 486 (Schindler v. Filene's Basement, Inc.) 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

Schindler v. Filene's Basement, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 486, 756 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), entered January 18, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Filene’s Basement, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent, Filene’s Basement, Inc., made out a prima facie case establishing its entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Simmons v Sam’s E., 293 AD2d 596 [2002]; Dominitz v Food Emporium, 271 AD2d 640 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Ritter, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, 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, Nassau County (Carter, J.), entered January 18, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Filene’s Basement, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent, Filene’s Basement, Inc., made out a prima facie case establishing its entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Simmons v Sam’s E., 293 AD2d 596 [2002]; Dominitz v Food Emporium, 271 AD2d 640 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Ritter, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 486, 756 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schindler-v-filenes-basement-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack