O'Connell v. Corto Bros. III

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connell v. Corto Bros. III

256 A.D.2d 1213, 683 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14381

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1213 (O'Connell v. Corto Bros. III) 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

O'Connell v. Corto Bros. III, 256 A.D.2d 1213, 683 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of negating the existence of all triable issues of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Plaintiff, who fell while leaving defendant’s hair salon, alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to maintain its walk [1214]*1214ramp free from ice and snow. Defendant failed to submit evidence establishing that those employees working at the salon lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged accumulation of ice or snow on the ramp (see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838). There is also an issue of fact whether defendant created the condition. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, 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 dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of negating the existence of all triable issues of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Plaintiff, who fell while leaving defendant’s hair salon, alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to maintain its walk [1214]*1214ramp free from ice and snow. Defendant failed to submit evidence establishing that those employees working at the salon lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged accumulation of ice or snow on the ramp (see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838). There is also an issue of fact whether defendant created the condition. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1213, 683 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnell-v-corto-bros-iii-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack