LaRosa v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaRosa v. City of New York

35 A.D.3d 548, 824 N.Y.S.2d 746

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 548 (LaRosa v. City of New York) 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

LaRosa v. City of New York, 35 A.D.3d 548, 824 N.Y.S.2d 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Ernest Torres and Ernest Torres, doing business as “Lauren Matthew Hair Design,” appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fartnow, J.), dated April 1, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a stretch of sidewalk which allegedly was located in front of premises owned by the appellants. After issue was joined, the appellants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred in front of their property.

The appellants failed to eliminate all issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff slipped and fell in front of their property. Accordingly, they failed to establish a prima facie case that they were not liable for the plaintiffs accident and their motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, 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 defendants Ernest Torres and Ernest Torres, doing business as “Lauren Matthew Hair Design,” appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fartnow, J.), dated April 1, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a stretch of sidewalk which allegedly was located in front of premises owned by the appellants. After issue was joined, the appellants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred in front of their property.

The appellants failed to eliminate all issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff slipped and fell in front of their property. Accordingly, they failed to establish a prima facie case that they were not liable for the plaintiffs accident and their motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 548, 824 N.Y.S.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larosa-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack