Huaman v. Tierney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huaman v. Tierney

108 A.D.3d 651, 969 N.Y.S.2d 535

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

DecidedJuly 17, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.3d 651 (Huaman v. Tierney) 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

Huaman v. Tierney, 108 A.D.3d 651, 969 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Marie Veronica Tierney appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), entered January 6, 2012, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Marie Veronica Tierney for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly fell after his pants got caught in a wire protruding from a fence on the property of the defendant Marie Veronica Tierney (hereinafter the appellant). The fence enclosed a garden area abutting a pathway leading to the sidewalk. The appellant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff to fall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Saggio v Town of Islip, 78 AD3d 922 [2010]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Austin, 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 Marie Veronica Tierney appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), entered January 6, 2012, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Marie Veronica Tierney for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly fell after his pants got caught in a wire protruding from a fence on the property of the defendant Marie Veronica Tierney (hereinafter the appellant). The fence enclosed a garden area abutting a pathway leading to the sidewalk. The appellant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff to fall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Saggio v Town of Islip, 78 AD3d 922 [2010]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.3d 651, 969 N.Y.S.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huaman-v-tierney-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack