Zwaanswijk v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zwaanswijk v. City of New York

247 A.D.2d 379, 667 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 836

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 379 (Zwaanswijk 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

Zwaanswijk v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 379, 667 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 14, 1997, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York. The City breached no duty of care to the injured plaintiff (see, e.g., Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579; Demesmin v Town of Islip, 147 AD2d 519, 520).

O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 14, 1997, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York. The City breached no duty of care to the injured plaintiff (see, e.g., Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579; Demesmin v Town of Islip, 147 AD2d 519, 520).

O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 379, 667 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zwaanswijk-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack