Alexander v. Rum Point Tavern, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. Rum Point Tavern, Inc.

62 A.D.3d 731, 877 N.Y.S.2d 915

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 12, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rum Point Tavern, Inc., also known as Rhumbline Restaurant, appeals, as limited by its brief, and the defendant Port Partners, Inc., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 11, 2008, as denied their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, they failed to satisfy their burden of establishing, prima facie, that the complained-of condition was not defective, or that they had no notice of a defective condition (see Kucevic v Three Park Ave. Bldg. Co., L.P., 55 AD3d 792 [2008]; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531 [2003]; cf. Mansfield v Dolcemascolo, 34 AD3d 763 [2006]). The deposition testimony of both appellants’ principals demonstrates that each appellant had knowledge of [732] the manner in which the complained-of condition was constructed.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Belen, 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, the defendant Rum Point Tavern, Inc., also known as Rhumbline Restaurant, appeals, as limited by its brief, and the defendant Port Partners, Inc., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 11, 2008, as denied their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, they failed to satisfy their burden of establishing, prima facie, that the complained-of condition was not defective, or that they had no notice of a defective condition (see Kucevic v Three Park Ave. Bldg. Co., L.P., 55 AD3d 792 [2008]; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531 [2003]; cf. Mansfield v Dolcemascolo, 34 AD3d 763 [2006]). The deposition testimony of both appellants’ principals demonstrates that each appellant had knowledge of [732] the manner in which the complained-of condition was constructed.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Belen, JJ., concur.

Alexander v. Rum Point Tavern, Inc., 62 A.D.3d 731, 877 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

62 A.D.3d 731 (Alexander v. Rum Point Tavern, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related