Curzio v. Tancredi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curzio v. Tancredi

8 A.D.3d 608, 778 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9162

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 608 (Curzio v. Tancredi) 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

Curzio v. Tancredi, 8 A.D.3d 608, 778 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated August 8, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Luciani v Waldbaum, Inc., 304 AD2d 537 [2003]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436 [1998]). Accordingly, on the defendant’s motion, he was required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Luciani v Waldbaum, Inc., supra). The evidence submitted by the defendant in the form of the parties’ testimony at their examinations before trial failed to establish that the defendant did not create the condition. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated August 8, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Luciani v Waldbaum, Inc., 304 AD2d 537 [2003]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436 [1998]). Accordingly, on the defendant’s motion, he was required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Luciani v Waldbaum, Inc., supra). The evidence submitted by the defendant in the form of the parties’ testimony at their examinations before trial failed to establish that the defendant did not create the condition. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 608, 778 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curzio-v-tancredi-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack