Cohen v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group of New York, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group of New York, LLC

140 A.D.3d 1111, 33 N.Y.S.3d 764

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

DecidedJune 29, 2016

Docket2015-09062

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1111 (Cohen v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group of New York, LLC) 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

Cohen v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group of New York, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 1111, 33 N.Y.S.3d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 4, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Arlene P. Cohen (hereinafter the injured ■ plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when, at a Houlihan’s Restaurant in Farmingdale, she stepped off of a carpeted area onto a tile floor, her left foot slid out from underneath her, and she landed flat on her back. The injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, subsequently commenced this action. They alleged that at the time of the accident, the defendants were in possession and control of the premises, and were responsible for its maintenance and repair. Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her accident (see Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056 [2015]; Grossi v Ralph Aievoli & Son, Inc., 125 AD3d 803 [2015]; Reluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 106 AD3d 972 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

Balkin, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 4, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Arlene P. Cohen (hereinafter the injured ■ plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when, at a Houlihan’s Restaurant in Farmingdale, she stepped off of a carpeted area onto a tile floor, her left foot slid out from underneath her, and she landed flat on her back. The injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, subsequently commenced this action. They alleged that at the time of the accident, the defendants were in possession and control of the premises, and were responsible for its maintenance and repair. Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her accident (see Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056 [2015]; Grossi v Ralph Aievoli & Son, Inc., 125 AD3d 803 [2015]; Reluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 106 AD3d 972 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

Balkin, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1111, 33 N.Y.S.3d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-ace-restaurant-group-of-new-york-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack