Klor v. American Airlines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klor v. American Airlines

305 A.D.2d 550, 759 N.Y.S.2d 391

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

DecidedMay 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 550 (Klor v. American Airlines) 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

Klor v. American Airlines, 305 A.D.2d 550, 759 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 1, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by showing that they neither created an unsafe condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Rajgopaul v Toys “R” Us, 297 AD2d 728 [2002]; O'Callaghan v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 294 AD2d 416 [2002]). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact because they submitted no proof, only speculation, as to what actually may have caused the fall in question (see Rajgopaul v Toys “R" Us, supra; Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 459 [2001]; Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, 258 AD2d 634 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Gold-stein and H. Miller, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 1, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by showing that they neither created an unsafe condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Rajgopaul v Toys “R” Us, 297 AD2d 728 [2002]; O'Callaghan v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 294 AD2d 416 [2002]). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact because they submitted no proof, only speculation, as to what actually may have caused the fall in question (see Rajgopaul v Toys “R" Us, supra; Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 459 [2001]; Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, 258 AD2d 634 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Gold-stein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 550, 759 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klor-v-american-airlines-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack