Prusak v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prusak v. New York City Housing Authority

43 A.D.3d 1022, 841 N.Y.S.2d 455

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1022 (Prusak v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Prusak v. New York City Housing Authority, 43 A.D.3d 1022, 841 N.Y.S.2d 455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered April 7, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, in which the third-party defendant joined, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Rodriguez v White Plains Pub. Schools, 35 AD3d 704 [2006]; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]), Here, the defendant third-[1023]*1023party plaintiff satisfied this burden (see Calo v Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488 [2007]; Nisimov v Ocean Props., LLC, 10 AD3d 640 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Muniz v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 628 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Florio and Fisher, 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 plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered April 7, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, in which the third-party defendant joined, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Rodriguez v White Plains Pub. Schools, 35 AD3d 704 [2006]; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]), Here, the defendant third-[1023]*1023party plaintiff satisfied this burden (see Calo v Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488 [2007]; Nisimov v Ocean Props., LLC, 10 AD3d 640 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Muniz v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 628 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1022, 841 N.Y.S.2d 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prusak-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack