Trummer v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trummer v. Eastchester Union Free School District

2 A.D.3d 626, 768 N.Y.S.2d 340

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 626 (Trummer v. Eastchester Union Free School District) 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

Trummer v. Eastchester Union Free School District, 2 A.D.3d 626, 768 N.Y.S.2d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986] ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986] ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 626, 768 N.Y.S.2d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trummer-v-eastchester-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack