Daniels v. Brisbane Leasing Limited Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. Brisbane Leasing Limited Partnership

24 A.D.3d 409, 804 N.Y.S.2d 925

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 409 (Daniels v. Brisbane Leasing Limited Partnership) 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

Daniels v. Brisbane Leasing Limited Partnership, 24 A.D.3d 409, 804 N.Y.S.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated November 19, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip- and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” (Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]; see Carrillo v PM Realty Group, 16 AD3d 611 [2005]; Colon v Produce Warehouse Carle Place, 303 AD2d 354 [2003]). Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion was insufficient to sustain this threshold burden (see Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., supra; Carrillo v PM Realty Group, supra; Habura v Austin Drugs of E. Meadow, 6 AD3d 660 [2004]). Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendants’ motion without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., supra; Colon v Produce Warehouse Carle Place, supra). Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated November 19, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip- and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” (Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]; see Carrillo v PM Realty Group, 16 AD3d 611 [2005]; Colon v Produce Warehouse Carle Place, 303 AD2d 354 [2003]). Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion was insufficient to sustain this threshold burden (see Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., supra; Carrillo v PM Realty Group, supra; Habura v Austin Drugs of E. Meadow, 6 AD3d 660 [2004]). Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendants’ motion without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., supra; Colon v Produce Warehouse Carle Place, supra). Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 409, 804 N.Y.S.2d 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-brisbane-leasing-limited-partnership-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack