Marchetti v. Modica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marchetti v. Modica

65 A.D.3d 1095, 885 N.Y.S.2d 220

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1095 (Marchetti v. Modica) 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

Marchetti v. Modica, 65 A.D.3d 1095, 885 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated May 14, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the placement of furniture at the site of the subject accident was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Neiderbach v 7-Eleven, Inc., 56 AD3d 632, 633 [2008]; Gagliardi v Walmart Stores, Inc., 52 AD3d 777 [2008]; Espinoza v Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 AD3d 855 [2007]; Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 36 AD3d 844 [2007]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Maravalli v Home Depot U.S.A., 266 AD2d 437 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Leventhal, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated May 14, 2008, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the placement of furniture at the site of the subject accident was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Neiderbach v 7-Eleven, Inc., 56 AD3d 632, 633 [2008]; Gagliardi v Walmart Stores, Inc., 52 AD3d 777 [2008]; Espinoza v Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 AD3d 855 [2007]; Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 36 AD3d 844 [2007]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Maravalli v Home Depot U.S.A., 266 AD2d 437 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1095, 885 N.Y.S.2d 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marchetti-v-modica-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack