Lafrancesca v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lafrancesca v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

23 A.D.3d 351, 803 N.Y.S.2d 438

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 351 (Lafrancesca v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) 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

Lafrancesca v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 351, 803 N.Y.S.2d 438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[352]*352The defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the hazard that caused the injured plaintiffs accident (see Knee v Trump Vil. Constr. Corp., 15 AD3d 545 [2005]; Karalic v City of New York, 307 AD2d 254, 255 [2003]). Since the defendant failed to me'et its burden, it is not necessary to consider whether the papers submitted in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Karalic v City of New York, supra). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Covello, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[352]*352The defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the hazard that caused the injured plaintiffs accident (see Knee v Trump Vil. Constr. Corp., 15 AD3d 545 [2005]; Karalic v City of New York, 307 AD2d 254, 255 [2003]). Since the defendant failed to me'et its burden, it is not necessary to consider whether the papers submitted in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Karalic v City of New York, supra). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 351, 803 N.Y.S.2d 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafrancesca-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack