Sheehan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. City of New York

48 A.D.3d 666, 850 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 666 (Sheehan 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

Sheehan v. City of New York, 48 A.D.3d 666, 850 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant New York Paving, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated August 2, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant New York Paving, Inc. (hereinafter NY Paving), failed to submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged defect in the roadway (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). NY Paving failed to demonstrate that its assertion that it did not perform any work at the accident site was based on a search of its records. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied [667]*667the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, 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 New York Paving, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated August 2, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant New York Paving, Inc. (hereinafter NY Paving), failed to submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged defect in the roadway (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). NY Paving failed to demonstrate that its assertion that it did not perform any work at the accident site was based on a search of its records. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied [667]*667the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 666, 850 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack