Tageldein v. Rockefeller Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tageldein v. Rockefeller Center, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 109, 689 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6434

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 109 (Tageldein v. Rockefeller Center, Inc.) 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

Tageldein v. Rockefeller Center, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 109, 689 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered July 28, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant Rockefeller Center Management Corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having adduced evidence that it did not, at the time of plaintiffs accident, own, lease, maintain, operate, or manage the premises upon which the accident is alleged to have occurred, defendant-respondent made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law; and, as plaintiff, in response, failed to adduce evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish any issue of fact as to defendant-respondent’s relationship to the subject premises, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant-respondent was correct (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered July 28, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant Rockefeller Center Management Corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having adduced evidence that it did not, at the time of plaintiffs accident, own, lease, maintain, operate, or manage the premises upon which the accident is alleged to have occurred, defendant-respondent made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law; and, as plaintiff, in response, failed to adduce evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish any issue of fact as to defendant-respondent’s relationship to the subject premises, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant-respondent was correct (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 109, 689 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tageldein-v-rockefeller-center-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack