Frazier v. Pioneer Central School District

298 A.D.2d 875, 748 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8929
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 1, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 875 (Frazier v. Pioneer Central School District) 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
Frazier v. Pioneer Central School District, 298 A.D.2d 875, 748 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Nenno, J.), entered January 28, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which seeks damages for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice on defendant’s loading dock. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the condition of the loading dock was not dangerous or defective or that defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Gentile v University of Rochester Med. Ctr., 292 AD2d 874; Atkinson v Golub Corp. Co., 278 AD2d 905, 905-906). Nor did defendant establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a storm in progress (see Stalker v Crestview Cadillac Corp., 284 AD2d 977; see also Vickery v Estate of Brockman, 278 AD2d 913, 914; Gilmartin v Tempestoso, 273 [876]*876AD2d 875). Because defendant failed to meet its initial burden, we do not address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s showing in opposition to the motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Gentile, 292 AD2d at 875; Frank v Price Chopper Operating Co., 275 AD2d 940, 941). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

GOWIN, DAVID v. AVOX SYSTEMS, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Gowin v. Avox System, Inc.
144 A.D.3d 1577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Brooks v. Saum
43 A.D.3d 1308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Kimpland v. Camillus Mall Associates, L.P.
37 A.D.3d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Rapini v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.
11 A.D.3d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Edwards v. Arlington Mall Associates
6 A.D.3d 1136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Kidwell v. Walden Avenue Blend-All Hotel Development, Inc.
300 A.D.2d 1080 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 A.D.2d 875, 748 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-pioneer-central-school-district-nyappdiv-2002.