Sims v. New Providence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sims v. New Providence

294 A.D.2d 243, 741 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5434

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

DecidedMay 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 243 (Sims v. New Providence) 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

Sims v. New Providence, 294 A.D.2d 243, 741 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered May 8, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, which alleges that unknown persons performed laser surgery on plaintiff as she slept in defendants’ premises, wás properly dismissed because the attacks were never revealed to defendants and were otherwise unforeseeable (see, Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 NY2d 875, 878). Plaintiff’s cross motion for a default judgment was properly denied since the record contains no indication that defendants’ [244]*244attorneys failed to make a scheduled court appearance. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered May 8, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, which alleges that unknown persons performed laser surgery on plaintiff as she slept in defendants’ premises, wás properly dismissed because the attacks were never revealed to defendants and were otherwise unforeseeable (see, Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 NY2d 875, 878). Plaintiff’s cross motion for a default judgment was properly denied since the record contains no indication that defendants’ [244]*244attorneys failed to make a scheduled court appearance. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 243, 741 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-new-providence-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack