Zygnerski v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zygnerski v. City of New York

283 A.D.2d 574, 724 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5221

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 574 (Zygnerski 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

Zygnerski v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 574, 724 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 14, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint since the defendant City of New York established that it did not have prior notice of the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall (see, Kempler v City of New York, 272 AD2d 584; Sewell v City of New York, 238 AD2d 331; Camacho v City of New York, 218 AD2d 725). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 14, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint since the defendant City of New York established that it did not have prior notice of the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall (see, Kempler v City of New York, 272 AD2d 584; Sewell v City of New York, 238 AD2d 331; Camacho v City of New York, 218 AD2d 725). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 574, 724 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zygnerski-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack