Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Kauffmann v. Capric

Kauffmann v. Capric

49 A.D.3d 606, 852 N.Y.2d 789
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2008·Published

Opinion

In response to the defendants’ showing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition complained of for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it, the plaintiffs failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Arrufat v City of New York, 45 AD3d 710 [2007]; Seabury v County of Dutchess, 38 AD3d 752 [2007]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Kauffmann v. Capric, 49 A.D.3d 606, 852 N.Y.2d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 606 (Kauffmann v. Capric) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History
492 N.E.2d 774 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Britto v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
21 A.D.3d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Seabury v. County of Dutchess
38 A.D.3d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Arrufat v. City of New York
45 A.D.3d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)