Correnti v. Chinchilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Correnti v. Chinchilla

131 A.D.3d 1095, 16 N.Y.S.3d 756

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2015

Docket2014-11834

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1095 (Correnti v. Chinchilla) 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

Correnti v. Chinchilla, 131 A.D.3d 1095, 16 N.Y.S.3d 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Troia, J.), dated October 3, 2014, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was injured when she slipped on a sloped, grassy area on the defendant’s property. The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Zegarelli v Dundon, 102 AD3d 958 [2013]; Bonilla v Starrett City at Spring Cr., 270 AD2d 377 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The affidavit from the plaintiff’s expert assumed facts not supported by the record (see Mendez v City of New York, 295 AD2d 487 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Maltese, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Troia, J.), dated October 3, 2014, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was injured when she slipped on a sloped, grassy area on the defendant’s property. The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Zegarelli v Dundon, 102 AD3d 958 [2013]; Bonilla v Starrett City at Spring Cr., 270 AD2d 377 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The affidavit from the plaintiff’s expert assumed facts not supported by the record (see Mendez v City of New York, 295 AD2d 487 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 1095, 16 N.Y.S.3d 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/correnti-v-chinchilla-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack