Pierre v. Carpet Discount Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierre v. Carpet Discount Center, Inc.

19 A.D.3d 393, 796 N.Y.S.2d 132

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

DecidedJune 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 393 (Pierre v. Carpet Discount Center, 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

Pierre v. Carpet Discount Center, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 393, 796 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which denied their 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 slipped and fell on ice on top of a cellar door abutting the defendants’ premises. The defendants submitted [394]*394evidence sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had sufficient time following the cessation of a snow storm to ameliorate any hazard created by the snow storm (see Russo v 40 Garden St. Partners, 6 AD3d 420 [2004]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Spolzino, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which denied their 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 slipped and fell on ice on top of a cellar door abutting the defendants’ premises. The defendants submitted [394]*394evidence sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had sufficient time following the cessation of a snow storm to ameliorate any hazard created by the snow storm (see Russo v 40 Garden St. Partners, 6 AD3d 420 [2004]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 393, 796 N.Y.S.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-v-carpet-discount-center-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack