Martinez v. Asta Surgical Chemists, Inc.

95 A.D.3d 1083, 943 N.Y.S.2d 784

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1083 (Martinez v. Asta Surgical Chemists, 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
Martinez v. Asta Surgical Chemists, Inc., 95 A.D.3d 1083, 943 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Franciscan Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered December 2, 2010, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for common-law negligence and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

The defendant Franciscan Construction Corp. (hereinafter the appellant) failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition that caused the [1084]*1084plaintiff to slip and fall (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Van Dina v St. Francis Hosp., Roslyn, N.Y., 45 AD3d 673 [2007]; Dugan v Crown Broadway, LLC, 33 AD3d 656, 657 [2006]; Avellino v TrizecHahn Newport, 5 AD3d 519 [2004]). Since the appellant failed to meet its initial burden, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Willis v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 9 AD3d 406 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for common-law negligence and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Avellino v. TrizecHahn Newport, Inc.
5 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Willis v. New York Racing Ass'n
9 A.D.3d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Dugan v. Crown Broadway, LLC
33 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Van Dina v. St. Francis Hospital
45 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 1083, 943 N.Y.S.2d 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-asta-surgical-chemists-inc-nyappdiv-2012.