Crafa v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crafa v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.

57 A.D.3d 937, 869 N.Y.2d 800

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 937 (Crafa v. Marshalls of MA, 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

Crafa v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 937, 869 N.Y.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

On their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to offer evidence sufficient to show that the condition complained of by the plaintiffs was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]). Nor did the defendants meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating their lack of constructive notice regarding the allegedly hazardous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall (see Roussos v Ciccotto, 15 AD3d 641, 642-643 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for [938]*938summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In light of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers. Fisher, J.E, Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

On their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to offer evidence sufficient to show that the condition complained of by the plaintiffs was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]). Nor did the defendants meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating their lack of constructive notice regarding the allegedly hazardous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall (see Roussos v Ciccotto, 15 AD3d 641, 642-643 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for [938]*938summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In light of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers. Fisher, J.E, Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 937, 869 N.Y.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crafa-v-marshalls-of-ma-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack