Versace v. United Parcel Service

283 A.D.2d 485, 724 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4971

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated May 30, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It was not reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would be injured as a result of the actions of the defendant’s employee. Accordingly, as there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, Danielenko v Kinney Rent A Car, 57 NY2d 198, 204). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Versace v. United Parcel Service, 283 A.D.2d 485, 724 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

283 A.D.2d 485 (Versace v. United Parcel Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Danielenko v. Kinney Rent a Car, Inc.
441 N.E.2d 1073 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)