Townsend v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Townsend v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · …an appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires at p. 401 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bogannam v. Bogannam
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Moreover, “[a]n appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401, 401 [2003]; see Susskind v Susskind, supra; DeVerna v DeVerna, supra).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wolff v. Wolff
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
“An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401, 401 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see" Brooks v. Brooks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489, 490 [1996]; see Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Julian Townsend
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 16, 2003.
306 A.D.2d 401
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 6, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, dismissed the complaint.

[*402] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which a jury could find for the plaintiff and against the defendant (see Habib v Habib, 278 AD2d 277 [2000]; Scholl v Heidi’s Delicatessen, 232 AD2d 396 [1996]). The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.