Walsh v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. Murphy

267 A.D.2d 172, 700 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13368

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 172 (Walsh v. Murphy) 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

Walsh v. Murphy, 267 A.D.2d 172, 700 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 1, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 25, 1998, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the fact that the evidence permits no more than speculation as to the cause of plaintiff’s fall down defendants’ staircase, the IAS Court properly granted defendants summary relief (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Also proper was the IAS Court’s denial of plaintiffs motion to renew since plaintiffs submission of a medical affidavit as to her loss of memory of the accident did not in any way ameliorate the fatal evidentiary deficiency. Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the Noseworthy doctrine (see, Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80-81) is not applicable to this case, since defendants’ knowledge as to the cause of plaintiffs fall is no greater than that of plaintiff (see, Lynn v Lynn, 216 AD2d 194, 195). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 1, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 25, 1998, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the fact that the evidence permits no more than speculation as to the cause of plaintiff’s fall down defendants’ staircase, the IAS Court properly granted defendants summary relief (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Also proper was the IAS Court’s denial of plaintiffs motion to renew since plaintiffs submission of a medical affidavit as to her loss of memory of the accident did not in any way ameliorate the fatal evidentiary deficiency. Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the Noseworthy doctrine (see, Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80-81) is not applicable to this case, since defendants’ knowledge as to the cause of plaintiffs fall is no greater than that of plaintiff (see, Lynn v Lynn, 216 AD2d 194, 195). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 172, 700 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack