Pacht v. International Business Machines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pacht v. International Business Machines, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 422, 643 N.Y.2d 638, 643 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6219

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

DecidedJune 3, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 422 (Pacht v. International Business Machines, Inc.) 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

Pacht v. International Business Machines, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 422, 643 N.Y.2d 638, 643 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants made a sufficient showing to establish that the revolving door which caused the plaintiff to fall and break her hip was not defective, and that even if it were, they had no knowledge of that defect, either actual or constructive, for a sufficient time prior to the occurrence of the plaintiff’s accident to have enabled them to correct it (see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Since she failed to make such a showing, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants made a sufficient showing to establish that the revolving door which caused the plaintiff to fall and break her hip was not defective, and that even if it were, they had no knowledge of that defect, either actual or constructive, for a sufficient time prior to the occurrence of the plaintiff’s accident to have enabled them to correct it (see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Since she failed to make such a showing, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 422, 643 N.Y.2d 638, 643 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacht-v-international-business-machines-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack