Notaro v. Buffalo Waterfront Restaurant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Notaro v. Buffalo Waterfront Restaurant Corp.

239 A.D.2d 963, 661 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6437

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 963 (Notaro v. Buffalo Waterfront Restaurant Corp.) 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

Notaro v. Buffalo Waterfront Restaurant Corp., 239 A.D.2d 963, 661 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although plaintiff will bear the burden at trial of proving that defendant created the allegedly dangerous condition of the stairs or had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Lowrey v Cumberland Farms, 162 AD2d 777, 778), on its motion for summary judgment defendant bore the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Jordan v Musinger, 197 AD2d 889). Defendant failed to meet that burden (see, Jordan v Musinger, supra; cf., Yaroschak v Suffern Window Cleaning Co., 174 AD2d 887, 888; Katz v New York Hosp., 170 AD2d 345; Lowrey v Cumberland Farms, supra, at 778), and we therefore do not consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although plaintiff will bear the burden at trial of proving that defendant created the allegedly dangerous condition of the stairs or had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Lowrey v Cumberland Farms, 162 AD2d 777, 778), on its motion for summary judgment defendant bore the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Jordan v Musinger, 197 AD2d 889). Defendant failed to meet that burden (see, Jordan v Musinger, supra; cf., Yaroschak v Suffern Window Cleaning Co., 174 AD2d 887, 888; Katz v New York Hosp., 170 AD2d 345; Lowrey v Cumberland Farms, supra, at 778), and we therefore do not consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion (see, Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 963, 661 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/notaro-v-buffalo-waterfront-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack