Castellana v. Stad Meat Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castellana v. Stad Meat Corp.

257 A.D.2d 642, 682 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 624

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 642 (Castellana v. Stad Meat 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

Castellana v. Stad Meat Corp., 257 A.D.2d 642, 682 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated January 21, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. [643]*643In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact as to whether the defendants either created, or had actual or constructive knowledge of, the dangerous condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Koenig v Shostal, 251 AD2d 202; Hamilton v Rite Aid Pharmacies, 234 AD2d 778). Bracken, J, P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated January 21, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. [643]*643In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact as to whether the defendants either created, or had actual or constructive knowledge of, the dangerous condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Koenig v Shostal, 251 AD2d 202; Hamilton v Rite Aid Pharmacies, 234 AD2d 778). Bracken, J, P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 642, 682 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castellana-v-stad-meat-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack