Turturro v. Squatrito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turturro v. Squatrito

52 A.D.3d 693, 858 N.Y.S.2d 897

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

DecidedJune 17, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 693 (Turturro v. Squatrito) 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

Turturro v. Squatrito, 52 A.D.3d 693, 858 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fitts, J.), entered March 7, 2007, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 5, 2007, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants demonstrated that they did not willfully commit the alleged trespass (see Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d 349, 352 [1985], cert denied 476 US 1117 [1986]; Kulpa v Stewart’s Ice Cream, 144 AD2d 205, 207 [1988]). This showing was sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.P, Ritter, Miller and Dillon, 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 trespass, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fitts, J.), entered March 7, 2007, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 5, 2007, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants demonstrated that they did not willfully commit the alleged trespass (see Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d 349, 352 [1985], cert denied 476 US 1117 [1986]; Kulpa v Stewart’s Ice Cream, 144 AD2d 205, 207 [1988]). This showing was sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.P, Ritter, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 693, 858 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turturro-v-squatrito-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack