Spruill v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spruill v. City of Yonkers

298 A.D.2d 576, 748 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10249

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 576 (Spruill v. City of Yonkers) 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

Spruill v. City of Yonkers, 298 A.D.2d 576, 748 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 23, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were not negligent in their supervision of the injured plaintiff (see Eldridge v Long Beach City School Dist., 255 AD2d 548, 549; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the supervision afforded by the defendants or the proximate cause of the accident. Specifically, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ purported expert was insufficient in this regard (see Merson v Syosset Cent. School Dist., 286 AD2d 668; Kazlow v City of New York, 253 AD2d 411; Loewenthal v Catskill Funland, 237 AD2d 262, 263). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 23, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were not negligent in their supervision of the injured plaintiff (see Eldridge v Long Beach City School Dist., 255 AD2d 548, 549; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the supervision afforded by the defendants or the proximate cause of the accident. Specifically, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ purported expert was insufficient in this regard (see Merson v Syosset Cent. School Dist., 286 AD2d 668; Kazlow v City of New York, 253 AD2d 411; Loewenthal v Catskill Funland, 237 AD2d 262, 263). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 576, 748 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spruill-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack