Yon v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yon v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 582, 30 N.Y.S.3d 818

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

DecidedMay 24, 2016

Docket1237 114252/09

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 582 (Yon 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

Yon v. City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 582, 30 N.Y.S.3d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 26, 2014, which granted the cross motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiff’s motion to preclude, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was proper in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he tripped and fell at a branch of the New York Public Library. It is well settled that the City is not responsible for injuries resulting from allegedly negligent maintenance of a library building (see Paz v City of New York, 157 AD2d 562 [1st Dept 1990]). In light of the dismissal of the complaint as against the City, plaintiff’s discovery motion became moot.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 26, 2014, which granted the cross motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiff’s motion to preclude, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was proper in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he tripped and fell at a branch of the New York Public Library. It is well settled that the City is not responsible for injuries resulting from allegedly negligent maintenance of a library building (see Paz v City of New York, 157 AD2d 562 [1st Dept 1990]). In light of the dismissal of the complaint as against the City, plaintiff’s discovery motion became moot.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 582, 30 N.Y.S.3d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack