Weed v. County of Orange
| Decision Date | 15 March 2011 |
| Citation | 82 A.D.3d 967,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02000,920 N.Y.S.2d 100 |
| Parties | Shandi WEED, appellant,v.COUNTY OF ORANGE, respondent, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
82 A.D.3d 967
920 N.Y.S.2d 100
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02000
Shandi WEED, appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, respondent, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 15, 2011.
[920 N.Y.S.2d 101]
Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (George A. Kohl II, of counsel), for appellant.David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Matthew J. Nothnagle of counsel), for respondent.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, ANITA R. FLORIO, and THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.
[82 A.D.3d 968] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), dated August 14, 2009, which, upon reargument, in effect, vacated so much of an order of the same court dated March 31, 2009, as denied the motion of the defendant County of Orange for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and thereupon granted that motion, (2) from a judgment of the same court dated October 5, 2009, which, upon the order dated August 14, 2009, is in favor of the defendant County of Orange and against her, dismissing the complaint, and (3), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated March 5, 2010, as denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to the motion of the defendant County of Orange for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 14, 2009, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, upon reargument, the determination in the order dated March 31, 2009, denying the motion of the defendant County of Orange for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is adhered to, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted
[920 N.Y.S.2d 102]
against the defendant County of Orange, and the order dated August 14, 2009, is modified accordingly; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 5, 2010, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the intermediate order dated August 14, 2009, must be dismissed, as the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on the appeal from the order dated August 14, 2009, are brought up for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cebron v. Tuncoglu
...sufficient for a trier of fact to determine whether the Town created the hazardous condition of the road ( see Weed v. County of Orange, 82 A.D.3d 967, 969, 920 N.Y.S.2d 100;Levy v. Town of Huntington, 54 A.D.3d 732, 733, 864 N.Y.S.2d 81). The Town's remaining contentions are either without......
-
People v. Monk
... ... Relevant FactsBy indictment in Westchester County, the defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two ... ...
-
Schiller v. Town of Ramapo
...notice of a defective condition on the pathway (see Cebron v. Tuncoglu, 109 A.D.3d 631, 633, 970 N.Y.S.2d 826 ; Weed v. County of Orange, 82 A.D.3d 967, 969, 920 N.Y.S.2d 100 ), in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town affirmatively created the defe......
-
Dworzanski v. Niagara–wheatfield Cent. Sch. Dist.
... ... [932 N.Y.S.2d 286] Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered June 17, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order granted ... ...