Zambrana v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Zambrana v. City of New York

727 N.E.2d 573, 94 N.Y.2d 887, 706 N.Y.S.2d 76, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 76

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 17, 2000·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the majority memorandum of the Appellate Division. We further note that plaintiff failed to identify any triable issue of fact with respect to whether defendant had notice of the reckless conduct of other skaters in order to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the majority memorandum of the Appellate Division. We further note that plaintiff failed to identify any triable issue of fact with respect to whether defendant had notice of the reckless conduct of other skaters in order to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Zambrana v. City of New York, 727 N.E.2d 573, 94 N.Y.2d 887, 706 N.Y.S.2d 76, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 76 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

727 N.E.2d 573 (Zambrana v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related