Townsend v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Townsend v. City of New York

306 A.D.2d 401, 760 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 401 (Townsend v. City of New York) 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

Townsend v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 401, 760 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 6, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, dismissed the complaint.

[402]*402Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which a jury could find for the plaintiff and against the defendant (see Habib v Habib, 278 AD2d 277 [2000]; Scholl v Heidi’s Delicatessen, 232 AD2d 396 [1996]). The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 6, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, dismissed the complaint.

[402]*402Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which a jury could find for the plaintiff and against the defendant (see Habib v Habib, 278 AD2d 277 [2000]; Scholl v Heidi’s Delicatessen, 232 AD2d 396 [1996]). The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 401, 760 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack