DeLorenzo v. Bales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeLorenzo v. Bales

129 A.D.3d 1013, 12 N.Y.S.3d 260

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

DecidedJune 24, 2015

Docket2014-09341

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1013 (DeLorenzo v. Bales) 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

DeLorenzo v. Bales, 129 A.D.3d 1013, 12 N.Y.S.3d 260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 15, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, in effect, *1014 denied their cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On November 14, 2010, the plaintiff Anthony DeLorenzo (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on a mat while exiting the front door of a house owned by the defendants. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that neither the mat itself nor its placement on the deck of their house constituted an inherently dangerous condition (see Sosa v RS 2001, Inc., 106 AD3d 720 [2013]; Leib v Silo Rest., Inc., 26 AD3d 359, 360 [2006]; Rosa v Southren, 8 AD3d 648 [2004]; Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412, 413 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and properly, in effect, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Roman and LaSalle, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 15, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, in effect, *1014 denied their cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On November 14, 2010, the plaintiff Anthony DeLorenzo (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on a mat while exiting the front door of a house owned by the defendants. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that neither the mat itself nor its placement on the deck of their house constituted an inherently dangerous condition (see Sosa v RS 2001, Inc., 106 AD3d 720 [2013]; Leib v Silo Rest., Inc., 26 AD3d 359, 360 [2006]; Rosa v Southren, 8 AD3d 648 [2004]; Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412, 413 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and properly, in effect, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 1013, 12 N.Y.S.3d 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delorenzo-v-bales-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack