Nisimov v. Ocean Properties, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nisimov v. Ocean Properties, LLC

10 A.D.3d 640, 781 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10751

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 13, 2004·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, in this case alleging a slip and fall on wet stairs, the defendant made out its prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that it neither ere[641]*641ated nor had actual or constructive notice of the wet stairs. The plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition thereto was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Birthwright v Málverne Union Free School Dist., 295 AD2d 549 [2002]; Spagnola v Trump Taj Mahal, 261 AD2d 604 [1999]; Prisco v Long Is. Univ., 258 AD2d 451, 452 [1999]; see also Rivas v 525 Bldg. Co., 306 AD2d 337 [2003]; Capra v Waldbaum’s Inc., 272 AD2d 497 [2000]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, in this case alleging a slip and fall on wet stairs, the defendant made out its prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that it neither ere[641]*641ated nor had actual or constructive notice of the wet stairs. The plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition thereto was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Birthwright v Málverne Union Free School Dist., 295 AD2d 549 [2002]; Spagnola v Trump Taj Mahal, 261 AD2d 604 [1999]; Prisco v Long Is. Univ., 258 AD2d 451, 452 [1999]; see also Rivas v 525 Bldg. Co., 306 AD2d 337 [2003]; Capra v Waldbaum’s Inc., 272 AD2d 497 [2000]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Nisimov v. Ocean Properties, LLC, 10 A.D.3d 640, 781 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

10 A.D.3d 640 (Nisimov v. Ocean Properties, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related