Case Name: Thomas Shelton et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. City of New York, Respondent, and Mindy Trepel, as Public Administrator of the Estate of Emily Brisbane, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-12-31
Citations: 256 A.D.2d 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Shelton et al., Appellants-Respondents, v City of New York, Respondent, and Mindy Trepel, as Public Administrator of the Estate of Emily Brisbane, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 611–611

Head Matter:
Thomas Shelton et al., Appellants-Respondents, v City of New York, Respondent, and Mindy Trepel, as Public Administrator of the Estate of Emily Brisbane, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant.
[682 NYS2d 890]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 14, 1997, as (1) granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, (2) granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Mindy Trepel which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a, and (3) denied their cross motion for leave to amend their bill of particulars and the complaint. The defendant Mindy Trepel cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against her. The cross appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated December 24, 1997, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination made in the order dated May 14, 1997, denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Mindy Trepel which was for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the order dated May 14, 1997, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 24, 1997, made upon reargument.
The issues raised on the cross appeal have been considered and are determined in the companion case of Shelton v City of New York (256 AD2d 611 [decided herewith]). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.