Shneyer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shneyer v. City of New York

244 A.D.2d 544, 665 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11843

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 544 (Shneyer 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

Shneyer v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 544, 665 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated September 4, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim insofar as they are asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that a defect in the design, installation, or maintenance of a light post was the proximate or concurring cause of the accident involved in this case (see, Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 NY2d 927; Kirtoglou v Fogarty, 235 AD2d 1019; Wang v County of Rockland, 179 AD2d 977; DiMarco v Verone, 147 AD2d 671; Crecca v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 146 AD2d 858; Scotti v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 136 AD2d 478). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated September 4, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim insofar as they are asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that a defect in the design, installation, or maintenance of a light post was the proximate or concurring cause of the accident involved in this case (see, Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 NY2d 927; Kirtoglou v Fogarty, 235 AD2d 1019; Wang v County of Rockland, 179 AD2d 977; DiMarco v Verone, 147 AD2d 671; Crecca v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 146 AD2d 858; Scotti v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 136 AD2d 478). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 544, 665 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shneyer-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack