Gifford v. Commerce Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gifford v. Commerce Bank

92 A.D.3d 539, 938 N.Y.2d 436

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 539 (Gifford v. Commerce Bank) 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

Gifford v. Commerce Bank, 92 A.D.3d 539, 938 N.Y.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should have been granted because they demonstrated that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and plaintiffs decedent’s deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the cleaning contractor caused or created the condition. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should have been granted because they demonstrated that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and plaintiffs decedent’s deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the cleaning contractor caused or created the condition. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 539, 938 N.Y.2d 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-commerce-bank-nyappdiv-2012.