Loiacono v. Quattro Piu, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loiacono v. Quattro Piu, Inc.

82 A.D.3d 940, 919 N.Y.2d 87

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 940 (Loiacono v. Quattro Piu, 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

Loiacono v. Quattro Piu, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 940, 919 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for [941]*941personal injuries she allegedly sustained after tripping over a step at the defendants’ restaurant. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged condition which caused the plaintiff to fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]; Ramos v Cooper Invs., Inc., 49 AD3d 623, 624 [2008]; Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for [941]*941personal injuries she allegedly sustained after tripping over a step at the defendants’ restaurant. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged condition which caused the plaintiff to fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]; Ramos v Cooper Invs., Inc., 49 AD3d 623, 624 [2008]; Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 940, 919 N.Y.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loiacono-v-quattro-piu-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack