Squillante v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Squillante v. City of Yonkers

231 A.D.2d 706, 647 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9721

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 706 (Squillante 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

Squillante v. City of Yonkers, 231 A.D.2d 706, 647 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated November 3, 1995, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant City of Yonkers made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendant City of Yonkers, and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case. Therefore dismissal of the action was warranted (see, e.g., Kleinmunz v Katz, 190 AD2d 657; Nicholas v Reason, 84 AD2d 915).

We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Altman, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated November 3, 1995, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant City of Yonkers made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendant City of Yonkers, and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case. Therefore dismissal of the action was warranted (see, e.g., Kleinmunz v Katz, 190 AD2d 657; Nicholas v Reason, 84 AD2d 915).

We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 706, 647 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/squillante-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack