Brown v. Basics USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Basics USA, Inc.

3 A.D.3d 546, 771 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 546 (Brown v. Basics USA, Inc.) 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

Brown v. Basics USA, Inc., 3 A.D.3d 546, 771 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered May 13, 2002, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants each made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In this regard, the mannequin upon which the plaintiff Sharon Brown allegedly tripped was readily observable and not an inherently dangerous condition (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, 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, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered May 13, 2002, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants each made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In this regard, the mannequin upon which the plaintiff Sharon Brown allegedly tripped was readily observable and not an inherently dangerous condition (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 546, 771 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-basics-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack