Arsenicos v. Westland South Shore Mall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arsenicos v. Westland South Shore Mall

294 A.D.2d 385, 742 N.Y.S.2d 329, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4949

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

DecidedMay 13, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 385 (Arsenicos v. Westland South Shore Mall) 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

Arsenicos v. Westland South Shore Mall, 294 A.D.2d 385, 742 N.Y.S.2d 329, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated July 24, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 8, 2001, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff Marilyn Arsénicos allegedly tripped and fell over a raised ceramic floor tile at the South Shore Mall in Suffolk. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the alleged height differential was trivial and, thus, not actionable. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that the claimed defect did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion. After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact by showing that a defect, in fact, existed which would constitute a dangerous or defective condition (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976) or that the alleged defect had the characteristics of a trap or nuisance (see Nathan v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 585; Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278; Neumann v Senior Citizens Ctr., 273 AD2d 452; Burstein v City of New York, 259 AD2d 579). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Adams and Cozier, 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 plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated July 24, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 8, 2001, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff Marilyn Arsénicos allegedly tripped and fell over a raised ceramic floor tile at the South Shore Mall in Suffolk. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the alleged height differential was trivial and, thus, not actionable. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that the claimed defect did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion. After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact by showing that a defect, in fact, existed which would constitute a dangerous or defective condition (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976) or that the alleged defect had the characteristics of a trap or nuisance (see Nathan v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 585; Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278; Neumann v Senior Citizens Ctr., 273 AD2d 452; Burstein v City of New York, 259 AD2d 579). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 385, 742 N.Y.S.2d 329, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arsenicos-v-westland-south-shore-mall-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack