Schorr v. Town of Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schorr v. Town of Ramapo

223 A.D.2d 632, 637 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 434

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 632 (Schorr v. Town of Ramapo) 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

Schorr v. Town of Ramapo, 223 A.D.2d 632, 637 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of Ramapo appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated September 20, 1994, 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 of the defendant Town of Ramapo for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against it, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Town of Ramapo submitted "evidentiary proof in admissible form” (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), i.e., an affidavit from a professional engineer with particular expertise in the area of traffic safety, which warranted " 'the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in [its] favor” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Further, it is undisputed that the "Traffic Study” upon which the plaintiffs relied in opposition to the Town’s motion had, in fact, been conducted more than 10 years earlier, and the defects cited therein were rectified long before the occurrence of the subject accident. Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of Ramapo appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated September 20, 1994, 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 of the defendant Town of Ramapo for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against it, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Town of Ramapo submitted "evidentiary proof in admissible form” (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), i.e., an affidavit from a professional engineer with particular expertise in the area of traffic safety, which warranted " 'the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in [its] favor” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Further, it is undisputed that the "Traffic Study” upon which the plaintiffs relied in opposition to the Town’s motion had, in fact, been conducted more than 10 years earlier, and the defects cited therein were rectified long before the occurrence of the subject accident. Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 632, 637 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schorr-v-town-of-ramapo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack