Goldin v. Riker

273 A.D.2d 197, 709 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6241
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 197 (Goldin v. Riker) 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
Goldin v. Riker, 273 A.D.2d 197, 709 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant New Life Management, Inc. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered March 24, 1999, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant will not be liable for a dangerous or defective condition on its property unless it created the condition, or had actual or constructive notice of its existence and a reasonable time to remedy the defect (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. [198]*198Auth., 99 AD2d 246, affd 64 NY2d 670). A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the lack of notice must establish, prima facie, the absence of notice (see, Beltran v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 456).

The appellant, New Life Management, Inc., failed to establish the absence of notice. The deposition testimony of its owner/president, that he had been aware of the subject pothole for at least two to three weeks before the accident, demonstrated that the appellant had actual notice of the defective condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hecht v. Saccoccio
120 A.D.3d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Chia Yun Tsai v. Duane Reade, Inc.
63 A.D.3d 1096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Wolff v. New York City Transit Authority
21 A.D.3d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Carrillo v. PM Realty Group
16 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Habura v. Austin Drugs of East Meadow, Inc.
6 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Riley v. ISS International Service System, Inc.
5 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bluman v. Freeport Union Free School District
5 A.D.3d 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Kucera v. Waldbaums Supermarkets
304 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Colon v. Produce Warehouse Carle Place, Inc.
303 A.D.2d 354 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Spooner v. New York City Transit Authority
298 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Burniche v. CB Richard Ellis, Buffalo, New York, L.L.C.
294 A.D.2d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Viceroy v. City of Yonkers
289 A.D.2d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 197, 709 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldin-v-riker-nyappdiv-2000.