Checo v. 452-53rd St. Realty Corp.

78 A.D.3d 880, 910 N.Y.S.2d 681
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 880 (Checo v. 452-53rd St. Realty 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
Checo v. 452-53rd St. Realty Corp., 78 A.D.3d 880, 910 N.Y.S.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated September 11, 2009, which denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell as a result of a broken, downwardly-sloped stair at the top of a staircase in a building owned by the defendant. To demonstrate [881]*881its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant had to establish, prima facie, that its agents or employees neither created the allegedly defective condition that caused the accident, nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Pryzywalny v New York City Tr. Auth., 69 AD3d 598, 598-599 [2010]; Joseph v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 842, 843 [2009]). However, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Pryzywalny v New York City Tr. Auth., 69 AD3d at 598-599). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 852 [1985]; Pryzywalny v New York City Tr. Auth., 69 AD3d at 599). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Leung v. Bolton
95 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A.D.3d 880, 910 N.Y.S.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/checo-v-452-53rd-st-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2010.