Koenig v. Shostal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koenig v. Shostal

251 A.D.2d 202, 674 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7377

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

DecidedJune 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 202 (Koenig v. Shostal) 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

Koenig v. Shostal, 251 A.D.2d 202, 674 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 11, 1997, granting the motion of defendant Mary Zanetti and the cross motion of defendant Rhoda Shostal for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Bernard Koenig alleges that, while attending a wedding reception catered by defendant Zanetti and held in the back yard of premises owned by defendant Shostal, he sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on a wet and muddy walkway. We agree with the motion court’s determination to dismiss the action since it is clear from the record that neither defendant created the muddy condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Cassanova v General Cinema Corp., 237 AD2d 155). While it had rained steadily on the day of the wedding reception, that circumstance does not fairly demonstrate or even raise a factual issue as to whether defendants had notice of the specific hazard alleged by plaintiff to have caused his harm, much less does it demonstrate that defendants had or are chargeable with sufficient advance knowledge of the hazard to enable them to take precautionary measures (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 11, 1997, granting the motion of defendant Mary Zanetti and the cross motion of defendant Rhoda Shostal for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Bernard Koenig alleges that, while attending a wedding reception catered by defendant Zanetti and held in the back yard of premises owned by defendant Shostal, he sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on a wet and muddy walkway. We agree with the motion court’s determination to dismiss the action since it is clear from the record that neither defendant created the muddy condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Cassanova v General Cinema Corp., 237 AD2d 155). While it had rained steadily on the day of the wedding reception, that circumstance does not fairly demonstrate or even raise a factual issue as to whether defendants had notice of the specific hazard alleged by plaintiff to have caused his harm, much less does it demonstrate that defendants had or are chargeable with sufficient advance knowledge of the hazard to enable them to take precautionary measures (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 202, 674 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koenig-v-shostal-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack