Soward v. Town of Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soward v. Town of Ramapo

111 A.D.2d 162

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

DecidedMay 6, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 162 (Soward v. Town of Ramapo) 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

Soward v. Town of Ramapo, 111 A.D.2d 162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Town of Ramapo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Wood, J.), entered July 17, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and the codefendants’ cross claims against it.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A material issue of fact exists as to responsibility for maintenance of the road on which plaintiff’s accident took place and the extent to which the road’s maintenance contributed to the accident. Since a triable issue of fact exists, summary judgment was properly denied (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395; CPLR 3212 [b]). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Town of Ramapo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Wood, J.), entered July 17, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and the codefendants’ cross claims against it.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A material issue of fact exists as to responsibility for maintenance of the road on which plaintiff’s accident took place and the extent to which the road’s maintenance contributed to the accident. Since a triable issue of fact exists, summary judgment was properly denied (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395; CPLR 3212 [b]). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soward-v-town-of-ramapo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack