From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doherty v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1996
228 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 17, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, J.).


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

In considering a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and give them the benefit of all inferences which may fairly be drawn. The motion may be granted only if there is no rational process by which a jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (see, Akerman v. City of New York, 226 A.D.2d 326; Kleinmunz v. Katz, 190 A.D.2d 657). Applying that standard to this case, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants Rabinovich.

We have examined the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Dulin v. Maher, 200 A.D.2d 707, 708; Mulligan v. Wetchler, 39 A.D.2d 102, 105). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Doherty v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1996
228 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Doherty v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:LINDA DOHERTY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 630

Citing Cases

Frank v. Nowicki

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to…