Mortillaro v. Sugar Refining Corp. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mortillaro v. Sugar Refining Corp. of America

251 A.D.2d 560, 673 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7529

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 560 (Mortillaro v. Sugar Refining Corp. of America) 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

Mortillaro v. Sugar Refining Corp. of America, 251 A.D.2d 560, 673 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 18, 1997, which granted the defendant Carolyn O’Connor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he slipped on ice on the ground of a parking lot while attending an auction of impounded vehicles. He commenced this action against the owner of the lot, the lessee of the lot, and Carolyn O’Connor, the City Marshal conducting the auction. The Supreme Court granted O’Connor’s motion for summary judgment and we affirm.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the deposition testimony of O’Connor and the lessee clearly established that O’Connor did not have the requisite ownership, occupancy, or control of the premises to impose a duty of care to the plaintiff (see, Gaeta v New York News, 62 NY2d 340, 350; Minott v City of New York, 230 AD2d 719; Turrisi v Ponderosa, Inc., 179 AD2d 956; see also, Sullivan v Specialty Glass Corp., 229 AD2d 572). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 18, 1997, which granted the defendant Carolyn O’Connor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he slipped on ice on the ground of a parking lot while attending an auction of impounded vehicles. He commenced this action against the owner of the lot, the lessee of the lot, and Carolyn O’Connor, the City Marshal conducting the auction. The Supreme Court granted O’Connor’s motion for summary judgment and we affirm.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the deposition testimony of O’Connor and the lessee clearly established that O’Connor did not have the requisite ownership, occupancy, or control of the premises to impose a duty of care to the plaintiff (see, Gaeta v New York News, 62 NY2d 340, 350; Minott v City of New York, 230 AD2d 719; Turrisi v Ponderosa, Inc., 179 AD2d 956; see also, Sullivan v Specialty Glass Corp., 229 AD2d 572). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 560, 673 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mortillaro-v-sugar-refining-corp-of-america-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack