Andrade v. Zamora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andrade v. Zamora

124 A.D.3d 570, 997 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2015

Docket2014-01479

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 570 (Andrade v. Zamora) 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

Andrade v. Zamora, 124 A.D.3d 570, 997 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J), dated November 20, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that they maintained their premises in a reasonably safe condition and that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition that caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). They also established, prima facie, that their conduct in renting the garage of their residence to the plaintiff in violation of their certificate of occupancy was not a proximate cause of the allegedly injury-producing event (see Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819, 820 [1979]; Horn v Hires, 84 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2011]; Johnson v Johnson Chem. Co., 183 AD2d 64, 72 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Eng, EJ., Mastro, Roman and Miller, 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, Queens County (Strauss, J), dated November 20, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that they maintained their premises in a reasonably safe condition and that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition that caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). They also established, prima facie, that their conduct in renting the garage of their residence to the plaintiff in violation of their certificate of occupancy was not a proximate cause of the allegedly injury-producing event (see Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819, 820 [1979]; Horn v Hires, 84 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2011]; Johnson v Johnson Chem. Co., 183 AD2d 64, 72 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Eng, EJ., Mastro, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 570, 997 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrade-v-zamora-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack