Singer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singer v. City of New York

224 A.D.2d 606, 639 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 606 (Singer 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

Singer v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 606, 639 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the fourth-party defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 30, 1994, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth-párty complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, [607]*607on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the fourth-party complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell in a hole in the sidewalk adjacent to property owned by the fourth-party defendants. There is no evidence that the fourth-party defendants made special use of the sidewalk or that they caused or created the defective condition. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment (see, Gaboff v City of New York, 197 AD2d 560). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, 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, the fourth-party defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 30, 1994, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth-párty complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, [607]*607on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the fourth-party complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell in a hole in the sidewalk adjacent to property owned by the fourth-party defendants. There is no evidence that the fourth-party defendants made special use of the sidewalk or that they caused or created the defective condition. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment (see, Gaboff v City of New York, 197 AD2d 560). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 606, 639 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack