Cohen v. Leisure Time Recreation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Leisure Time Recreation, Inc.

304 A.D.2d 333, 757 N.Y.S.2d 36, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3553

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The deposition testimony of defendant’s supervisory employee, to the effect that he had no notice of the alleged hazard and that he had inspected the site of plaintiffs accident shortly before the accident and immediately after defendant’s maintenance employee had finished working in the area and found no sign of the complained of hazard, i.e., water on the floor, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant had no notice of and had not created the hazard (see Strowman v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 252 AD2d 384 [1998]). Plaintiffs purely speculative contention that defendant’s maintenance employee may have created the hazard was insufficient to raise a triable issue (see Dombrower v Maharia Realty Corp., 296 AD2d 353 [2002]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The deposition testimony of defendant’s supervisory employee, to the effect that he had no notice of the alleged hazard and that he had inspected the site of plaintiffs accident shortly before the accident and immediately after defendant’s maintenance employee had finished working in the area and found no sign of the complained of hazard, i.e., water on the floor, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant had no notice of and had not created the hazard (see Strowman v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 252 AD2d 384 [1998]). Plaintiffs purely speculative contention that defendant’s maintenance employee may have created the hazard was insufficient to raise a triable issue (see Dombrower v Maharia Realty Corp., 296 AD2d 353 [2002]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cohen v. Leisure Time Recreation, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 333, 757 N.Y.S.2d 36, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 333 (Cohen v. Leisure Time Recreation, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related