Connelly v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connelly v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, Inc.

38 A.D.3d 588, 830 N.Y.S.2d 670

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 588 (Connelly v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, 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

Connelly v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 588, 830 N.Y.S.2d 670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated September 15, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Mason Avenue Holding which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Mason Avenue Holding (hereinafter Mason) made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged icy condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall, that it did not have actual or constructive notice of that particular condition, and that it did not have actual notice of a recurring dangerous condition on the subject premises (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Murphy v 136 N. Blvd. Assoc., 304 AD2d 540 [2003]; Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership, 299 AD2d 444 [2002]; Gloria v MGM Emerald Enters., 298 AD2d 355 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Mason’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Prudenti, EJ., Schmidt, Krausman and Balkin, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated September 15, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Mason Avenue Holding which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Mason Avenue Holding (hereinafter Mason) made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged icy condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall, that it did not have actual or constructive notice of that particular condition, and that it did not have actual notice of a recurring dangerous condition on the subject premises (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Murphy v 136 N. Blvd. Assoc., 304 AD2d 540 [2003]; Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership, 299 AD2d 444 [2002]; Gloria v MGM Emerald Enters., 298 AD2d 355 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Mason’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Prudenti, EJ., Schmidt, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 588, 830 N.Y.S.2d 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connelly-v-shop-rite-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack