Bordonaro v. Garcia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bordonaro v. Garcia

242 A.D.2d 256, 661 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8218

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 256 (Bordonaro v. Garcia) 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

Bordonaro v. Garcia, 242 A.D.2d 256, 661 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered August 23, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice while descending the front stairs of the defendants’ home. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence that the defendants created the icy condition nor is there any evidence that the defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants made the area more hazardous by any snow and ice removal efforts (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Mandel v City of New York, 44 NY2d 1004; Arcuri v Vitolo, 196 AD2d 519; Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered August 23, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice while descending the front stairs of the defendants’ home. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence that the defendants created the icy condition nor is there any evidence that the defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants made the area more hazardous by any snow and ice removal efforts (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Mandel v City of New York, 44 NY2d 1004; Arcuri v Vitolo, 196 AD2d 519; Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 256, 661 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordonaro-v-garcia-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack