Bailey v. Curry

1 A.D.2d 1059, 767 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1 A.D.3d 1059, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 2003
DocketAppeal No. 1
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1059 (Bailey v. Curry) 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
Bailey v. Curry, 1 A.D.2d 1059, 767 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1 A.D.3d 1059, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Bergin, J.), entered July 10, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff commenced this action asserting a cause of action for negligence based on injuries sustained by her daughter when she slipped and fell in a school parking lot. Although defendants supported their motion with evidence that the parking lot was routinely inspected for dangerous conditions, they submitted no evidence establishing when such an inspection was last conducted (see Mancini v Quality Mkts., 256 AD2d 1177 [1998]). Defendants thus failed to establish as a matter of law that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition (see Pelow v Tri-Main Dev., 303 AD2d 940, 941 [2003]), i.e., that the condition did not “exist for a sufficient length of time prior [1060]*1060to the accident to permit defendant[s’] employees to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). The failure of defendants to meet their initial burden requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Present—Pine, J.P, Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Wood v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth.
2019 NY Slip Op 9136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
AUSTIN, VIVIAN M. v. CDGA NATIONAL BANK TRUST
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Austin v. CDGA National Bank Trust & Canandaigua National Corp.
114 A.D.3d 1298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
CATALANO, JOSEPH v. TANNER, LAURIE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Catalano v. Tanner
112 A.D.3d 1299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Carr v. Midtown Rochester Properties, LLC
67 A.D.3d 1469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Conklin v. Ulm
41 A.D.3d 1290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Whitley v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority
34 A.D.3d 1368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Diana v. RB-3 Associates
12 A.D.3d 1108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ward v. Pyramid Co.
11 A.D.3d 1012 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 1059, 767 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1 A.D.3d 1059, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-curry-nyappdiv-2003.