Cemaletin v. James H. Rambo, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cemaletin v. James H. Rambo, Inc.

307 A.D.2d 946, 763 N.Y.S.2d 471

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

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 946 (Cemaletin v. James H. Rambo, 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

Cemaletin v. James H. Rambo, Inc., 307 A.D.2d 946, 763 N.Y.S.2d 471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered July 3, 2002, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

[947]*947Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

“In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant created the dangerous condition [which] caused the accident or that it had actual or constructive notice of that condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time” (Vlachos v Weis Mkts., 303 AD2d 677, 678 [2003]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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