Lander v. Nacri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lander v. Nacri

130 A.D.2d 628, 515 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46642

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

DecidedMay 18, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 628 (Lander v. Nacri) 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

Lander v. Nacri, 130 A.D.2d 628, 515 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated January 29, 1986, which is in favor of the defendant and against him upon the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the trial evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record reveals that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition on his roof which could have caused the plaintiff to slip and fall, or that the defendant or his employees had created any dangerous condition. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and the defendant was properly granted judgment as a matter of law (see, e.g., Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Bogart v Woolworth Co., 24 NY2d 936; Katcher v Ideal Tennis, 65 AD2d 751; Dowling v Woolworth Co., 16 AD2d 672). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated January 29, 1986, which is in favor of the defendant and against him upon the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the trial evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record reveals that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition on his roof which could have caused the plaintiff to slip and fall, or that the defendant or his employees had created any dangerous condition. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and the defendant was properly granted judgment as a matter of law (see, e.g., Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Bogart v Woolworth Co., 24 NY2d 936; Katcher v Ideal Tennis, 65 AD2d 751; Dowling v Woolworth Co., 16 AD2d 672). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 628, 515 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lander-v-nacri-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack