Ganda v. Cardinale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ganda v. Cardinale

14 A.D.3d 481, 786 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 155

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 481 (Ganda v. Cardinale) 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

Ganda v. Cardinale, 14 A.D.3d 481, 786 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 28, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met her burden of proving that she did not [482]*482create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Dane v Taco Bell Corp., 297 AD2d 274 [2002]). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 28, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met her burden of proving that she did not [482]*482create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Dane v Taco Bell Corp., 297 AD2d 274 [2002]). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 481, 786 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganda-v-cardinale-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack