Arata v. Farahzad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arata v. Farahzad

63 A.D.3d 971, 880 N.Y.S.2d 551

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 971 (Arata v. Farahzad) 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

Arata v. Farahzad, 63 A.D.3d 971, 880 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 17, 2008, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Darkside Productions, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Darkside Productions, Inc., is granted.

[972]*972The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Darkside Productions, Inc. (hereinafter Darkside). The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that Darkside maintained the subject premises in a reasonably safe condition and that its employee did not conduct himself in a negligent manner (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Weinberg v JAF Color Labs, Inc., 57 AD3d 769 [2008]; Dabnis v West Islip Pub. Lib., 45 AD3d 802 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Spolzino, J.P, Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 17, 2008, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Darkside Productions, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Darkside Productions, Inc., is granted.

[972]*972The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Darkside Productions, Inc. (hereinafter Darkside). The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that Darkside maintained the subject premises in a reasonably safe condition and that its employee did not conduct himself in a negligent manner (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Weinberg v JAF Color Labs, Inc., 57 AD3d 769 [2008]; Dabnis v West Islip Pub. Lib., 45 AD3d 802 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Spolzino, J.P, Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 971, 880 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arata-v-farahzad-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack