Skay v. Public Library of Rockville Centre
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bovich v. East Meadow Public Library (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Matter of Cox v. Spoth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Grant v. L & J G Stickley, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Augustine v. Sugrue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Blanco v. Oliveri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Marchese v. Queens Boulevard Extended Care Facility Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Schectel v. Southland Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Desiderio v. Foodtown Supermarket (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Moscatelli v. City of Middletown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Amadio v. Pathmark Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Diane Skay appeals and nonparty Michael Skay purportedly appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 27, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied as academic their cross motion to amend the notice of claim.
Ordered that the purported appeal of Michael Skay is dismissed, inasmuch as he- is not a party to this action and is not aggrieved by the order appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that on the appeal by the plaintiff, the order is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
"The plaintiffs’ failure to establish the cause of [the injured plaintiff’s] fall is fatal to their case” (Leary v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 218 AD2d 686, 687; see, Vinicio v Marriott Corp., 217 AD2d 656; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388; Earle v Channel Home Ctr., 158 AD2d 507). The inadmissible hearsay statements contained in the affidavit of Michael Skay, the plaintiff s husband, were insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Siegel v Terrusa, 222 AD2d 428).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.