Amsel v. New York Convention Center Operating Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amsel v. New York Convention Center Operating Corp.

60 A.D.3d 534, 875 N.Y.S.2d 476

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered June 9, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion [535] granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established prima facie its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it had rained earlier in the day and was raining at the time of plaintiffs accident and that defendant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the tracked-in water from accumulating by placing mats on the lobby floor and mopping the floor throughout the day and had neither actual nor constructive notice of the particular wet condition that allegedly caused the accident (see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204 [2004]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered June 9, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion [535] granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established prima facie its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it had rained earlier in the day and was raining at the time of plaintiffs accident and that defendant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the tracked-in water from accumulating by placing mats on the lobby floor and mopping the floor throughout the day and had neither actual nor constructive notice of the particular wet condition that allegedly caused the accident (see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204 [2004]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Amsel v. New York Convention Center Operating Corp., 60 A.D.3d 534, 875 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

60 A.D.3d 534 (Amsel v. New York Convention Center Operating Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related