Casale v. Brookdale Medical Associates

43 A.D.3d 418, 841 N.Y.S.2d 126
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 14, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 418 (Casale v. Brookdale Medical Associates) 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
Casale v. Brookdale Medical Associates, 43 A.D.3d 418, 841 N.Y.S.2d 126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated May 30, 2006, which granted the separate motions of the defendants BHMC Enterprises, Inc., sued herein as Brookdale Medical Associates, and Budget Wines & Liquors, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

“[T]he imposition of liability for a dangerous condition on property must be predicated upon occupancy, ownership, control, or special use of the premises” (James v Stark, 183 AD2d 873, 873 [1992]; see Ellers v Horwitz Family Ltd. Partnership, 36 AD3d 849, 850-851 [2007]; Schwalb v Kulaski, 29 AD3d 563 [2006]; Welwood v Association for Children With Down Syndrome, 248 AD2d 707 [1998]). In this case, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in a parking lot adjacent to a building owned by the defendant Budget Wines & Liquors, Inc. (hereinafter Budget), and leased to the defendant BHMC Enterprises, Inc., sued herein as Brookdale Medical Associates (hereinafter Brookdale). In support of their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, both Budget and Brookdale demon[419]*419strated that they did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the parking lot in which the accident occurred. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Budget and Brookdale, dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dalpiaz v. McGuire
2019 NY Slip Op 7235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Zaair Nafiz Abdal Wali v. City of New York
71 A.D.3d 1134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Doe v. City of New York
19 Misc. 3d 936 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 418, 841 N.Y.S.2d 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casale-v-brookdale-medical-associates-nyappdiv-2007.