Nembhard v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education

300 A.D.2d 456, 750 N.Y.S.2d 880
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 456 (Nembhard v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education) 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
Nembhard v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, 300 A.D.2d 456, 750 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered January 24, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on an icy staircase at a school operated by the defendant. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the remedial measures undertaken by the defendant were reasonable and appropriate under all of the circumstances and whether the defendant either created the allegedly dangerous condition or increased the hazard already present (see Booth v City of New York, 272 AD2d 357; Kennedy v C & C New Main St. Corp., 269 AD2d 499; LoSquadro v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brooklyn, 253 AD2d 856). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs affidavit in opposition to its motion did not present feigned factual issues designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier statements (cf. Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 459; Nieves v ISS Cleaning Servs. Group, 284 AD2d 441). Thus, the affidavit was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dylan v. CEJ Properties, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 2403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Icdia Corp. v. Visaggi
135 A.D.3d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Gleason v. City of New York
68 A.D.3d 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ruic v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre
51 A.D.3d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Franklin v. Omni Sagamore Hotel
5 A.D.3d 348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Kelly v. Media Service Corp.
304 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 456, 750 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nembhard-v-mount-vernon-city-school-district-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2002.