Young v. Tierney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. Tierney

281 A.D.2d 542, 727 N.Y.S.2d 314, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 542 (Young v. Tierney) 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

Young v. Tierney, 281 A.D.2d 542, 727 N.Y.S.2d 314, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 28, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Bard College for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the respondent’s motion, in which it made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the allegedly dangerous condition created by the respondent’s placement of a sign at an intersection was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Leary v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 218 AD2d 686). Thus, the respondent was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 28, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Bard College for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the respondent’s motion, in which it made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the allegedly dangerous condition created by the respondent’s placement of a sign at an intersection was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Leary v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 218 AD2d 686). Thus, the respondent was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 542, 727 N.Y.S.2d 314, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-tierney-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack