Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Altagracia Morales, Plaintiff-Respondent v. the City of New York

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


December 27, 2012

ALTAGRACIA MORALES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CSC HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS. CSC HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, CFG CABLE CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Morales v City of New York

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered February 18, 2011, which denied defendants CSC Holdings, Inc. and Cablevision Systems NYC Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and third-party defendant CFG Cable Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against CSC Holdings, Inc., Cablevision Systems NYC Corporation and CFG Cable Corporation and dismissing the third party complaint.

The evidence submitted by CSC Holdings, Cablevision and CFG that they had not received any complaints regarding work performed in connection with the installation of a cable conduit in 1992 was uncontroverted. The inspection conducted by plaintiff's expert, approximately 14 years after the work was performed, did not constitute probative evidence of negligence by the movants, as his inferences as to the quality of the work performed by these defendants were speculative. Because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the liability of the movants, the motions for summary judgment should have been granted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK

20121227

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.