McFadden v. Causeway Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McFadden v. Causeway Construction Corp.

272 A.D.2d 268, 709 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 268 (McFadden v. Causeway Construction Corp.) 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

McFadden v. Causeway Construction Corp., 272 A.D.2d 268, 709 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 21, 1999, which granted defendant Causeway Construction Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant Causeway since plaintiff, in response to Causeway’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Causeway created the sidewalk hazard that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip, made special use of the subject sidewalk, or had a duty to warn of the sidewalk’s dangerous condition, which was open and obvious. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 21, 1999, which granted defendant Causeway Construction Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant Causeway since plaintiff, in response to Causeway’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Causeway created the sidewalk hazard that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip, made special use of the subject sidewalk, or had a duty to warn of the sidewalk’s dangerous condition, which was open and obvious. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 268, 709 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-causeway-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2000.