Ashton v. Chen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ashton v. Chen

298 A.D.2d 477, 748 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9963

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 477 (Ashton v. Chen) 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

Ashton v. Chen, 298 A.D.2d 477, 748 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated May 1, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, their motion for summary judgment was properly denied since they failed to make out a prima facie case showing that they neither created nor [478]*478had actual or constructive notice of the condition complained of, or, in any event, that the condition was open and obvious (see Rivas v Waldbaums Supermarket, 247 AD2d 600; cf. Schmidt v Barstow Assoc., 276 AD2d 784; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated May 1, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, their motion for summary judgment was properly denied since they failed to make out a prima facie case showing that they neither created nor [478]*478had actual or constructive notice of the condition complained of, or, in any event, that the condition was open and obvious (see Rivas v Waldbaums Supermarket, 247 AD2d 600; cf. Schmidt v Barstow Assoc., 276 AD2d 784; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 477, 748 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashton-v-chen-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack