Snyder v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snyder v. City of New York

234 A.D.2d 282, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12783

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 282 (Snyder 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

Snyder v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 282, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 21, 1995, as denied their respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony and sworn affidavit are sufficient to defeat the appellants’ motions for summary judgment (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068). There exist triable issues of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff tripped and fell over wood left on the sidewalk as a result of the appellants’ negligence.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff’s affidavit did not contradict his prior deposition testimony (cf., Prunty v Keltie’s Bum Steer, 163 AD2d 595). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, 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 defendants separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 21, 1995, as denied their respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony and sworn affidavit are sufficient to defeat the appellants’ motions for summary judgment (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068). There exist triable issues of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff tripped and fell over wood left on the sidewalk as a result of the appellants’ negligence.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff’s affidavit did not contradict his prior deposition testimony (cf., Prunty v Keltie’s Bum Steer, 163 AD2d 595). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 282, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack