Chapman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapman v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 507, 30 N.Y.S.3d 542

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

DecidedMay 17, 2016

Docket1150 103882/10

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 507 (Chapman v. City of New York) 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

Chapman v. City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 507, 30 N.Y.S.3d 542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Ñervo, J.), entered October 16, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff’s notice of claim and complaint, as amplified by her bill of particulars, made clear that she was alleging that there were at least two separate dangerous conditions that caused or contributed to her fall, namely, the presence of a dirty, dark, somewhat dry liquid on the stairs and the defective condition of the stairs themselves, which plaintiff alleges were worn, uneven and slippery. Defendant’s motion addressed the former condition but not the latter, thereby failing to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see e.g. Breitman v Dennett, 77 AD3d 498 [1st Dept 2010]; Miller v Village of E. Hampton, 98 AD3d 1007, 1008-1009 [2d Dept 2012]).

*508 In view of defendant’s failure to meet its initial burden, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion (see Simantov v Kipps Taxi, Inc., 68 AD3d 661 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Ñervo, J.), entered October 16, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff’s notice of claim and complaint, as amplified by her bill of particulars, made clear that she was alleging that there were at least two separate dangerous conditions that caused or contributed to her fall, namely, the presence of a dirty, dark, somewhat dry liquid on the stairs and the defective condition of the stairs themselves, which plaintiff alleges were worn, uneven and slippery. Defendant’s motion addressed the former condition but not the latter, thereby failing to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see e.g. Breitman v Dennett, 77 AD3d 498 [1st Dept 2010]; Miller v Village of E. Hampton, 98 AD3d 1007, 1008-1009 [2d Dept 2012]).

*508 In view of defendant’s failure to meet its initial burden, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion (see Simantov v Kipps Taxi, Inc., 68 AD3d 661 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 507, 30 N.Y.S.3d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack