Bautista v. Bronx Wattson Gardens, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bautista v. Bronx Wattson Gardens, LLC

293 A.D.2d 290, 739 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3459

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

DecidedApril 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 290 (Bautista v. Bronx Wattson Gardens, LLC) 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

Bautista v. Bronx Wattson Gardens, LLC, 293 A.D.2d 290, 739 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered February 13, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs own deposition testimony discloses that she will not be able to establish that defendant property owner created or had actual notice of the alleged defect on its private walkway. Nor is any question of fact raised as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged hazard, since the record affords no basis for the conclusion that the defect was “visible and apparent” (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action to recover for breach of the landowner’s duty to maintain its property in reasonably safe condition was properly granted (see, Perez v Bronx Park S. Assoc., 285 AD2d 402, 403). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered February 13, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs own deposition testimony discloses that she will not be able to establish that defendant property owner created or had actual notice of the alleged defect on its private walkway. Nor is any question of fact raised as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged hazard, since the record affords no basis for the conclusion that the defect was “visible and apparent” (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action to recover for breach of the landowner’s duty to maintain its property in reasonably safe condition was properly granted (see, Perez v Bronx Park S. Assoc., 285 AD2d 402, 403). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 290, 739 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bautista-v-bronx-wattson-gardens-llc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack