Sessa v. Motown Cafe, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sessa v. Motown Cafe, L. L. C.

272 A.D.2d 537, 708 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5840

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

DecidedMay 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 537 (Sessa v. Motown Cafe, L. L. C.) 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

Sessa v. Motown Cafe, L. L. C., 272 A.D.2d 537, 708 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Motown Cafe, L. L. C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated July 28, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, 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 defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court erred when it denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, because the plaintiff was only able to speculate as to the cause of her fall (see, Aronow v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 264 AD2d 450; Roff v Trump Castle Assocs., 243 AD2d 698; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 defendant Motown Cafe, L. L. C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated July 28, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, 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 defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court erred when it denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, because the plaintiff was only able to speculate as to the cause of her fall (see, Aronow v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 264 AD2d 450; Roff v Trump Castle Assocs., 243 AD2d 698; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 537, 708 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sessa-v-motown-cafe-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack