Peygumbari v. Forest Plaza Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peygumbari v. Forest Plaza Associates

29 A.D.3d 768, 814 N.Y.S.2d 746

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 768 (Peygumbari v. Forest Plaza Associates) 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

Peygumbari v. Forest Plaza Associates, 29 A.D.3d 768, 814 N.Y.S.2d 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 12, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped on a patch of oil and fell while working on the roof of a building owned by the defendant. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant either created the patch of oil, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct it or warn of its existence (see Todd v City of New York, 19 AD3d 587 [2005]; Gwyn v 575 Fifth Ave. Assoc., 12 AD3d 403, 404 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 12, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped on a patch of oil and fell while working on the roof of a building owned by the defendant. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant either created the patch of oil, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct it or warn of its existence (see Todd v City of New York, 19 AD3d 587 [2005]; Gwyn v 575 Fifth Ave. Assoc., 12 AD3d 403, 404 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 768, 814 N.Y.S.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peygumbari-v-forest-plaza-associates-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack