Price v. County of Suffolk

13 A.D.3d 509, 787 N.Y.S.2d 106, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15621

This text of 13 A.D.3d 509 (Price v. County of Suffolk) 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
Price v. County of Suffolk, 13 A.D.3d 509, 787 N.Y.S.2d 106, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), entered November 20, 2003, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Village of Lindenhurst, Herbert Harman’s Lounge, Inc., doing business as Station Cafe, and the defendant Teel Realty, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendants Herbert Harman’s Lounge, Inc., doing business as Station Cafe (hereinafter Station Cafe), and Teel Realty, Inc. (hereinafter Teel), were properly awarded summary judgment since the evidence established that the injured plaintiffs accident occurred on a municipal sidewalk and there was no evidence presented that Teel or Station Cafe affirmatively created the defect on the sidewalk upon which the injured plaintiff [510]*510tripped and fell or utilized that sidewalk for any special use or benefit (see Marable v City of New Rochelle, 284 AD2d 378 [2001]; Alessi v Zapolsky, 228 AD2d 531 [1996]).

The defendant Village of Lindenhurst was properly awarded summary judgment since the evidence established that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition upon which the injured plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell, it did not create the condition through any affirmative act of negligence, and there was no special use which conferred a special benefit on it (see Price v County of Suffolk, 303 AD2d 571 [2003]; Frullo v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 274 AD2d 499 [2000]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alessi v. Zapolsky
228 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Frullo v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre
274 A.D.2d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Marable v. City of New Rochelle
284 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Price v. County of Suffolk
303 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 509, 787 N.Y.S.2d 106, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-2004.