Matcovsky v. Days Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matcovsky v. Days Hotel

10 A.D.3d 557, 782 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11003

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 557 (Matcovsky v. Days Hotel) 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

Matcovsky v. Days Hotel, 10 A.D.3d 557, 782 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, [558]*558J.), entered October 15, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water in defendants’ hotel’s lobby, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

The complaint should have been dismissed for lack of evidence that defendants received any complaints or otherwise acquired actual notice of the alleged puddle, or that the puddle had existed for a sufficient period of time for defendants to have acquired constructive notice (see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204 [2004], citing, inter alia, Kovelsky v City Univ., 221 AD2d 234 [1995]; and Wallace v Doral Tuscany Hotel, 302 AD2d 255 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, [558]*558J.), entered October 15, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water in defendants’ hotel’s lobby, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

The complaint should have been dismissed for lack of evidence that defendants received any complaints or otherwise acquired actual notice of the alleged puddle, or that the puddle had existed for a sufficient period of time for defendants to have acquired constructive notice (see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204 [2004], citing, inter alia, Kovelsky v City Univ., 221 AD2d 234 [1995]; and Wallace v Doral Tuscany Hotel, 302 AD2d 255 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 557, 782 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matcovsky-v-days-hotel-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack