Dominicus v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominicus v. City of Yonkers

288 A.D.2d 337, 732 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 337 (Dominicus v. City of Yonkers) 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

Dominicus v. City of Yonkers, 288 A.D.2d 337, 732 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 18, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4401, for judgment in their favor as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

At trial, the plaintiff testified that while skating at an ice rink owned by the defendants, her foot caught in a hole in the ice and she fell. The plaintiff, however, did not come forward with any evidence tending to establish that the alleged condition was caused by the defendants (see, Carbo v City of New York, 275 AD2d 439) or had existed for a sufficient length of time to charge the defendants with constructive notice (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Altro v Wal-Mart Stores, 282 AD2d 487). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion, made at the close of the evidence, to dismiss the complaint. Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Prudenti, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 18, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4401, for judgment in their favor as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

At trial, the plaintiff testified that while skating at an ice rink owned by the defendants, her foot caught in a hole in the ice and she fell. The plaintiff, however, did not come forward with any evidence tending to establish that the alleged condition was caused by the defendants (see, Carbo v City of New York, 275 AD2d 439) or had existed for a sufficient length of time to charge the defendants with constructive notice (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Altro v Wal-Mart Stores, 282 AD2d 487). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion, made at the close of the evidence, to dismiss the complaint. Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 337, 732 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominicus-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack