Muto v. Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muto v. Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist

68 A.D.3d 1789, 891 N.Y.2d 770

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1789 (Muto v. Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist) 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

Muto v. Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist, 68 A.D.3d 1789, 891 N.Y.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she allegedly tripped on a floor mat on property owned and occupied by defendants, causing her to fall. Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By their own submissions, defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether they had notice that the condition of the floor mat on the day of plaintiffs fall rendered it a tripping hazard (see Groth v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 59 AD3d 1086 [2009]; cf. Quinn v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctrs. of N.Y., Inc., 15 AD3d 857 [2005]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she allegedly tripped on a floor mat on property owned and occupied by defendants, causing her to fall. Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By their own submissions, defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether they had notice that the condition of the floor mat on the day of plaintiffs fall rendered it a tripping hazard (see Groth v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 59 AD3d 1086 [2009]; cf. Quinn v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctrs. of N.Y., Inc., 15 AD3d 857 [2005]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1789, 891 N.Y.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muto-v-roman-catholic-church-of-st-john-the-evangelist-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack