Habura v. Austin Drugs of East Meadow, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Habura v. Austin Drugs of East Meadow, Inc.

6 A.D.3d 660, 775 N.Y.S.2d 186

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 660 (Habura v. Austin Drugs of East Meadow, Inc.) 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

Habura v. Austin Drugs of East Meadow, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 660, 775 N.Y.S.2d 186 (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, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered August 5, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell [661]*661on advertising flyers on the floor of a store owned by the defendant. She commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. However, in support of its motion, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous and defective condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of such condition and a reasonable time to remedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Goldin v Riker, 273 AD2d 197 [2000]; Beltran v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 456 [1999]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Cozier, 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, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered August 5, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell [661]*661on advertising flyers on the floor of a store owned by the defendant. She commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. However, in support of its motion, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous and defective condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of such condition and a reasonable time to remedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Goldin v Riker, 273 AD2d 197 [2000]; Beltran v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 456 [1999]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 660, 775 N.Y.S.2d 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/habura-v-austin-drugs-of-east-meadow-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack