Montero v. Southern Boulevard Ltd. Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montero v. Southern Boulevard Ltd. Partnership

73 A.D.3d 568, 899 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedMay 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 568 (Montero v. Southern Boulevard Ltd. Partnership) 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

Montero v. Southern Boulevard Ltd. Partnership, 73 A.D.3d 568, 899 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered November 24, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff visited the premises on April 12, 2001, to pick up her paycheck from her employer, a tenant on defendant’s property, when she lost her footing on the top step as she was about to descend a stairway and fell, suffering injury. She acknowledged at deposition that she had never previously noticed a lump or crack in this step, nor was she aware of any witness who had. Under these circumstances, the record creates no triable issues of fact as to whether any hazardous condition existed sufficient to impose liability (compare Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 NY2d 903 [1979]), or whether defendant had constructive notice of any visible or apparent defect existing for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit its discovery and repair (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; compare Alexander v New York City Tr., 34 AD3d 312 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered November 24, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff visited the premises on April 12, 2001, to pick up her paycheck from her employer, a tenant on defendant’s property, when she lost her footing on the top step as she was about to descend a stairway and fell, suffering injury. She acknowledged at deposition that she had never previously noticed a lump or crack in this step, nor was she aware of any witness who had. Under these circumstances, the record creates no triable issues of fact as to whether any hazardous condition existed sufficient to impose liability (compare Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 NY2d 903 [1979]), or whether defendant had constructive notice of any visible or apparent defect existing for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit its discovery and repair (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; compare Alexander v New York City Tr., 34 AD3d 312 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 568, 899 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montero-v-southern-boulevard-ltd-partnership-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack