Peron v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peron v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

286 A.D.2d 488, 729 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8288

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

DecidedAugust 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 488 (Peron v. Rite Aid of New York, 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

Peron v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 286 A.D.2d 488, 729 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated June 6, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“An abutting landowner will not be liable to a pedestrian who sustains an injury on a public sidewalk unless (1) the landowner created the defective condition or caused the defect to occur because of some special use, or (2) a statute or ordinance placed the obligation to maintain the sidewalk upon the landowner and expressly made the landowner liable for injuries occasioned by the failure to perform that duty” (Quinn v City of New York, 271 AD2d 515, 516; see, James v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 503; Leggio v County of Nassau, 281 AD2d 518). Although the plaintiff made no claim of a special [489]*489use or a violation of a statute or ordinance by the defendants (see, Pich v Krupp, 272 AD2d 459), the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to trip and fall (see, Packer v City of New York, 282 AD2d 587). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Williams v Southland Corp., 204 AD2d 717). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florio, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated June 6, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“An abutting landowner will not be liable to a pedestrian who sustains an injury on a public sidewalk unless (1) the landowner created the defective condition or caused the defect to occur because of some special use, or (2) a statute or ordinance placed the obligation to maintain the sidewalk upon the landowner and expressly made the landowner liable for injuries occasioned by the failure to perform that duty” (Quinn v City of New York, 271 AD2d 515, 516; see, James v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 503; Leggio v County of Nassau, 281 AD2d 518). Although the plaintiff made no claim of a special [489]*489use or a violation of a statute or ordinance by the defendants (see, Pich v Krupp, 272 AD2d 459), the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to trip and fall (see, Packer v City of New York, 282 AD2d 587). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Williams v Southland Corp., 204 AD2d 717). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 488, 729 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peron-v-rite-aid-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack