Altreche v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altreche v. City of New York

122 A.D.3d 556, 996 N.Y.S.2d 105

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 5, 2014

Docket2013-04503

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 556 (Altreche v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altreche v. City of New York, 122 A.D.3d 556, 996 N.Y.S.2d 105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated December 4, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell in a school. The defendant City of New York established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the accident occurred on public school premises, and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the school (see NY City Charter § 521; Education Law § 2590-b [1] [a]; Myers v City of New York, 64 AD3d 546, 547 [2009]; Leacock v City of New York, 61 AD3d 827, 827 [2009]; Bleiberg v City of New York, 43 AD3d 969, 971 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

With respect to the cause of action asserted against the defendant Department of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter the DOE), the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the DOE neither created the alleged wet condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838 [1986]; Zerilli v Western Beef Retail, Inc., 72 AD3d 681, 681 [2010]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the DOE “was not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” (Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home, 248 AD2d 687, 687 *557 [1998]; see Naulo v New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 AD3d 651, 651 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Eng, EJ., Dillon, Duffy and Barros, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated December 4, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell in a school. The defendant City of New York established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the accident occurred on public school premises, and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the school (see NY City Charter § 521; Education Law § 2590-b [1] [a]; Myers v City of New York, 64 AD3d 546, 547 [2009]; Leacock v City of New York, 61 AD3d 827, 827 [2009]; Bleiberg v City of New York, 43 AD3d 969, 971 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

With respect to the cause of action asserted against the defendant Department of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter the DOE), the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the DOE neither created the alleged wet condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838 [1986]; Zerilli v Western Beef Retail, Inc., 72 AD3d 681, 681 [2010]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the DOE “was not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” (Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home, 248 AD2d 687, 687 *557 [1998]; see Naulo v New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 AD3d 651, 651 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Eng, EJ., Dillon, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 556, 996 N.Y.S.2d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altreche-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack