Sorrentino v. Paganica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sorrentino v. Paganica

18 A.D.3d 858, 796 N.Y.S.2d 667

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

DecidedMay 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 858 (Sorrentino v. Paganica) 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

Sorrentino v. Paganica, 18 A.D.3d 858, 796 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated July 15, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[859]*859In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration that the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injury was his own negligence in placing his fingers into the chute of the defendant’s snow blower, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Amaya v L’Hommedieu, 6 AD3d 638 [2004]; see also Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232 [1998]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Lifson, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated July 15, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[859]*859In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration that the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injury was his own negligence in placing his fingers into the chute of the defendant’s snow blower, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Amaya v L’Hommedieu, 6 AD3d 638 [2004]; see also Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232 [1998]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 858, 796 N.Y.S.2d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorrentino-v-paganica-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack