Alayo v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alayo v. Port Authority

107 A.D.3d 834, 966 N.Y.S.2d 865

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 2013·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered November 9, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a patch of ice on [835] property owned by the defendant. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Feola v City of New York, 102 AD3d 827, 827-828 [2013]; Wylie v Brooks/ Eckerd Pharmacy, 49 AD3d 533, 534 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered November 9, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a patch of ice on [835] property owned by the defendant. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Feola v City of New York, 102 AD3d 827, 827-828 [2013]; Wylie v Brooks/ Eckerd Pharmacy, 49 AD3d 533, 534 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Alayo v. Port Authority, 107 A.D.3d 834, 966 N.Y.S.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

107 A.D.3d 834 (Alayo v. Port Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related