Vaswani v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vaswani v. Martin

278 A.D.2d 96, 717 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13072

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 96 (Vaswani v. Martin) 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

Vaswani v. Martin, 278 A.D.2d 96, 717 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered June 22, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was assaulted on the grounds of defendant-appellant’s outdoor parking lot, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs submissions were sufficient to satisfy any burden plaintiff had on the motion to come forward with evidence that the attack was foreseeable. “Issues of negligence, foreseeability and proximate cause involve the kinds of judgmental variables which have traditionally, and soundly, been left to the finders of fact to resolve.” (Rotz v City of New York, 143 AD2d 301, 304.) Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered June 22, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was assaulted on the grounds of defendant-appellant’s outdoor parking lot, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs submissions were sufficient to satisfy any burden plaintiff had on the motion to come forward with evidence that the attack was foreseeable. “Issues of negligence, foreseeability and proximate cause involve the kinds of judgmental variables which have traditionally, and soundly, been left to the finders of fact to resolve.” (Rotz v City of New York, 143 AD2d 301, 304.) Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 96, 717 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaswani-v-martin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack