Versace v. United Parcel Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Versace v. United Parcel Service

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

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 485 (Versace v. United Parcel Service) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 485, 724 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/versace-v-united-parcel-service-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack