Caires v. Southland Corp.

247 A.D.2d 572, 669 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1752
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 23, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 572 (Caires v. Southland Corp.) 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
Caires v. Southland Corp., 247 A.D.2d 572, 669 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 30, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff Robert Caires was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell on an air hose lying on the sidewalk. The air hose led to an air pump owned by the defendant Service Station Vending Equipment. The air pump was attached to the side of a 7-Eleven store owned/operated by the defendants Southland Corporation and Muhammad Usmmani. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual notice of it (see, [573]*573Digiannantonio v Richmond Hill Sav. Bank, 212 AD2d 501; see also, Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688, affd 88 NY2d 955). The plaintiffs also failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the defendants had constructive notice of the condition (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc., 232 AD2d 596; Priester v Madison Sq. Garden Corp., 230 AD2d 838; cf., Williams v Southland Corp., 204 AD2d 717). Further, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants should be charged with constructive notice because of a recurring condition is not supported by the record (see, Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc., supra; cf., Weisenthal v Pick-man, 153 AD2d 849).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Popovskaya v. Kings Delights, Inc.
288 A.D.2d 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 572, 669 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caires-v-southland-corp-nyappdiv-1998.