Hadida v. Austin Ventures Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hadida v. Austin Ventures Corp.

49 A.D.3d 812, 853 N.Y.2d 904

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 812 (Hadida v. Austin Ventures Corp.) 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

Hadida v. Austin Ventures Corp., 49 A.D.3d 812, 853 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

While standing outside a door to premises owned by the defendant, the plaintiff was struck by the door, which was pushed open by an individual exiting the premises. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for the personal injuries which she allegedly sustained in the accident, claiming that the door in question was dangerous and defective.

The evidence which the defendant submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment, including the deposition testimony and affidavit of the defendant’s co-owner, Gary Salvit, established, prima facie, that the door did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition (see Mullaney v Koenig, 21 AD3d 939 [2005]). The submission of the plaintiffs expert in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the condition of the door constituted a violation of a statute or code or raise any other triable issue of fact (see Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278, 279 [2000]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

While standing outside a door to premises owned by the defendant, the plaintiff was struck by the door, which was pushed open by an individual exiting the premises. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for the personal injuries which she allegedly sustained in the accident, claiming that the door in question was dangerous and defective.

The evidence which the defendant submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment, including the deposition testimony and affidavit of the defendant’s co-owner, Gary Salvit, established, prima facie, that the door did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition (see Mullaney v Koenig, 21 AD3d 939 [2005]). The submission of the plaintiffs expert in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the condition of the door constituted a violation of a statute or code or raise any other triable issue of fact (see Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278, 279 [2000]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 812, 853 N.Y.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadida-v-austin-ventures-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack