Gilliam v. White Castle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilliam v. White Castle

8 A.D.3d 428, 780 N.Y.S.2d 18, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8400

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 428 (Gilliam v. White Castle) 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

Gilliam v. White Castle, 8 A.D.3d 428, 780 N.Y.S.2d 18, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 19, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through evidence that it neither created the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall, nor had actual or constructive knowledge thereof (see Galietta v New York Sports Club, 4 AD3d 449, 450 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pizarro v Grenadier Realty Corp., 5 AD3d 652 [2004]). The plaintiff’s cousin, who was with her when the accident occurred, stated in an affidavit that, as the plaintiff was leaving the defendant’s restaurant, she slipped and fell on some refuse located on the steps just outside the door. Such evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created the condition or had actual notice of it. Moreover, in the absence of proof as to how long the condition existed, there was no evidence to permit an inference that the defendant had constructive notice of it. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Stone v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 302 AD2d 376, 377 [2003]; McDuffie v Fleet Fin. Group, 269 AD2d 575 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 19, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through evidence that it neither created the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall, nor had actual or constructive knowledge thereof (see Galietta v New York Sports Club, 4 AD3d 449, 450 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pizarro v Grenadier Realty Corp., 5 AD3d 652 [2004]). The plaintiff’s cousin, who was with her when the accident occurred, stated in an affidavit that, as the plaintiff was leaving the defendant’s restaurant, she slipped and fell on some refuse located on the steps just outside the door. Such evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created the condition or had actual notice of it. Moreover, in the absence of proof as to how long the condition existed, there was no evidence to permit an inference that the defendant had constructive notice of it. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Stone v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 302 AD2d 376, 377 [2003]; McDuffie v Fleet Fin. Group, 269 AD2d 575 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 428, 780 N.Y.S.2d 18, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilliam-v-white-castle-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack