Pastors v. Town of Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pastors v. Town of Harrison

57 A.D.3d 636, 868 N.Y.2d 543

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 636 (Pastors v. Town of Harrison) 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

Pastors v. Town of Harrison, 57 A.D.3d 636, 868 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that the defect which caused her trip-and-fall accident was created by the defendant’s negligence in repairing the roadway in question (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Furthermore, proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of negligence against a landowner for the failure to maintain the property in a safe condition, but is relevant on the issue of the plaintiffs comparative negligence (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant’s negligence. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that the defect which caused her trip-and-fall accident was created by the defendant’s negligence in repairing the roadway in question (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Furthermore, proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of negligence against a landowner for the failure to maintain the property in a safe condition, but is relevant on the issue of the plaintiffs comparative negligence (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant’s negligence. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 636, 868 N.Y.2d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pastors-v-town-of-harrison-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack