Kauffmann v. Capric

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kauffmann v. Capric

49 A.D.3d 606, 852 N.Y.2d 789

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 606 (Kauffmann v. Capric) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 606, 852 N.Y.2d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffmann-v-capric-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack