Dennis v. Stationery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dennis v. Stationery

28 A.D.3d 238, 811 N.Y.S.2d 566

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

DecidedApril 6, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 238 (Dennis v. Stationery) 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

Dennis v. Stationery, 28 A.D.3d 238, 811 N.Y.S.2d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered January 5, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant Riverbay’s motion for summary judgment, and upon a search of the record, dismissed the complaint as against both defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff in this slip-and-fall case failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition in the area of the accident that was routinely left unaddressed by defendants (see Cochetti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 AD3d 852 [2005]; Tejeda v Six Ten Mgt. Corp., 15 AD3d 265 [2005]; cf. Irizarry v 15 Mosholu Four, LLC, 24 AD3d 373, 806 NYS2d 534 [2005]; O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered January 5, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant Riverbay’s motion for summary judgment, and upon a search of the record, dismissed the complaint as against both defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff in this slip-and-fall case failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition in the area of the accident that was routinely left unaddressed by defendants (see Cochetti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 AD3d 852 [2005]; Tejeda v Six Ten Mgt. Corp., 15 AD3d 265 [2005]; cf. Irizarry v 15 Mosholu Four, LLC, 24 AD3d 373, 806 NYS2d 534 [2005]; O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 238, 811 N.Y.S.2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-stationery-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack