Kostic v. Ascent Media Group, LLC

79 A.D.3d 818, 912 N.Y.S.2d 445
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 818 (Kostic v. Ascent Media Group, LLC) 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
Kostic v. Ascent Media Group, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 818, 912 N.Y.S.2d 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

[819]*819In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated September 29, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Ascent Media Group, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Ascent Media Group, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition in its parking lot which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall (see Crosthwaite v Acadia Realty Trust, 62 AD3d 823, 824 [2009]; Wylie v Brooks/Eckerd Pharmacy, 49 AD3d 533, 534 [2008]; Murphy v 136 N. Blvd. Assoc., 304 AD2d 540 [2003]). General awareness that, at times, an icy condition developed in the parking lot during winter months was insufficient to constitute notice of the specific condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall (see Mauge v Barrow St. Ale House, 70 AD3d 1016, 1017 [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 properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bombino-Munroe v. Church of St. Bernard
2018 NY Slip Op 5131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Bader v. River Edge at Hastings Owners Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 1588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Atkins v. State of New York
123 A.D.3d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Amendola v. City of New York
89 A.D.3d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.D.3d 818, 912 N.Y.S.2d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kostic-v-ascent-media-group-llc-nyappdiv-2010.