Moore v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Smith

256 A.D.2d 450, 683 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13493

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 450 (Moore v. Smith) 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

Moore v. Smith, 256 A.D.2d 450, 683 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Linda Smith and Sandra J. McMillian appeal from [451]*451an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered December 12, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, they did not sustain their initial burden of establishing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the defect which allegedly caused the injured plaintiffs fall (see, Raynor v Torres, 248 AD2d 698; cf., Martines v New York City Tr. Auth., 251 AD2d 464). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Thompson, 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 defendants Linda Smith and Sandra J. McMillian appeal from [451]*451an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered December 12, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, they did not sustain their initial burden of establishing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the defect which allegedly caused the injured plaintiffs fall (see, Raynor v Torres, 248 AD2d 698; cf., Martines v New York City Tr. Auth., 251 AD2d 464). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 450, 683 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-smith-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack