Singh v. Tabernacle of Prayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singh v. Tabernacle of Prayer

48 A.D.3d 667, 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 667 (Singh v. Tabernacle of Prayer) 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

Singh v. Tabernacle of Prayer, 48 A.D.3d 667, 850 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered November 22, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against her on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury charge as given appropriately presented the jury with the issue of whether the defendant created the allegedly dangerous condition through its allegedly negligent snow removal work (see PJI 2:111A. 1). Additionally, the defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to an adverse inference charge with respect to certain documents (cf. Jean-Pierre v Touro Coll., 40 AD3d 819 [2007]; Wilkie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 274 AD2d 474 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered November 22, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against her on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury charge as given appropriately presented the jury with the issue of whether the defendant created the allegedly dangerous condition through its allegedly negligent snow removal work (see PJI 2:111A. 1). Additionally, the defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to an adverse inference charge with respect to certain documents (cf. Jean-Pierre v Touro Coll., 40 AD3d 819 [2007]; Wilkie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 274 AD2d 474 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 667, 850 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singh-v-tabernacle-of-prayer-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack