Lazar v. Burger Heaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lazar v. Burger Heaven

88 A.D.3d 591, 931 N.Y.2d 296

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 591 (Lazar v. Burger Heaven) 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

Lazar v. Burger Heaven, 88 A.D.3d 591, 931 N.Y.2d 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants submitted evidence showing that the chair was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous (see Matthews v Vlad Restoration Ltd., 74 AD3d 692 [2010]; Schulman v Old Navy/Gap, Inc., 45 AD3d 475 [2007]). Defendants also demonstrated that the placement of the café’s chairs on the sidewalk was in compliance with 34 RCNY 2-10 (c) (1), which provides that “[e]ight feet or one-half the sidewalk width, whichever is greater, shall be maintained by the permittee for unobstructed pedestrian passage.”

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Indeed, plaintiff admitted to having previously observed the alleged condition and does not maintain that the condition was obscured (compare Centeno v Regine’s Originals, 5 AD3d 210 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants submitted evidence showing that the chair was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous (see Matthews v Vlad Restoration Ltd., 74 AD3d 692 [2010]; Schulman v Old Navy/Gap, Inc., 45 AD3d 475 [2007]). Defendants also demonstrated that the placement of the café’s chairs on the sidewalk was in compliance with 34 RCNY 2-10 (c) (1), which provides that “[e]ight feet or one-half the sidewalk width, whichever is greater, shall be maintained by the permittee for unobstructed pedestrian passage.”

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Indeed, plaintiff admitted to having previously observed the alleged condition and does not maintain that the condition was obscured (compare Centeno v Regine’s Originals, 5 AD3d 210 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 591, 931 N.Y.2d 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazar-v-burger-heaven-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack