Uddin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uddin v. City of New York

52 A.D.3d 422, 861 N.Y.S.2d 25

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

DecidedJune 26, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 422 (Uddin 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

Uddin v. City of New York, 52 A.D.3d 422, 861 N.Y.S.2d 25 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J), entered November 30, 2007, which denied the motion [423]*423by defendants L & L and Alpha for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion was based solely on plaintiffs testimony, at a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination, that his accident was caused when three or four gallons of water and debris fell onto his windshield from the upper level of the Queensboro Bridge. His observation that construction was taking place on the upper level at the time was confirmed in an affidavit by a city employee. Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to conduct any discovery of defendants. Under the circumstances, the motion was premature (Rengifo v City of New York, 7 AD3d 773 [2004]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J), entered November 30, 2007, which denied the motion [423]*423by defendants L & L and Alpha for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion was based solely on plaintiffs testimony, at a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination, that his accident was caused when three or four gallons of water and debris fell onto his windshield from the upper level of the Queensboro Bridge. His observation that construction was taking place on the upper level at the time was confirmed in an affidavit by a city employee. Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to conduct any discovery of defendants. Under the circumstances, the motion was premature (Rengifo v City of New York, 7 AD3d 773 [2004]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 422, 861 N.Y.S.2d 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uddin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack