Davranov v. 470 Realty Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davranov v. 470 Realty Associates, LLC

79 A.D.3d 697, 911 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 697 (Davranov v. 470 Realty Associates, LLC) 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

Davranov v. 470 Realty Associates, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 697, 911 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 15, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Edwards v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 721 [2010]; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]). A defendant’s burden cannot be [698]*698satisfied, merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiffs case, as the defendant did here (see Picart v Brookhaven Country Day School, 37 AD3d 798, 799 [2007]). Since the defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, 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, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 15, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Edwards v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 721 [2010]; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]). A defendant’s burden cannot be [698]*698satisfied, merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiffs case, as the defendant did here (see Picart v Brookhaven Country Day School, 37 AD3d 798, 799 [2007]). Since the defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 697, 911 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davranov-v-470-realty-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack