Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co.

266 A.D.2d 53, 698 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11594

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered September 1, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since plaintiff was unable, in response to defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, to demonstrate any triable issue as to whether her fall was attributable to a defective condition for which defendants had been responsible. “The mere fact that [plaintiff] fell and sustained injury [did] not constitute negligence” (Williams v Port Auth., 247 AD2d 296, 297). The court also correctly denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for further discovery, since it was based on nothing more than the hope that additional evidence supporting her claims would be uncovered (see, Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 636). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co., 266 A.D.2d 53, 698 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

266 A.D.2d 53 (Diamint v. M.L. Burke Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Auerbach v. Bennett
393 N.E.2d 994 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Williams v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
247 A.D.2d 296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)