Rajgopaul v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rajgopaul v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.

297 A.D.2d 728, 747 N.Y.2d 792, 747 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 728 (Rajgopaul v. Toys "R" Us, 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

Rajgopaul v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 297 A.D.2d 728, 747 N.Y.2d 792, 747 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by showing that it neither created an unsafe condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, 258 AD2d 634; Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 459). In response, the plaintiffs submitted no proof, only speculation, as to what actually may have caused the fall (see Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, supra). The conclusory affidavits supplied by the plaintiffs contradicted prior deposition testimony and do not constitute the sort of evidence needed to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Humphreys v Veneziano, 268 AD2d 461; see also Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by showing that it neither created an unsafe condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, 258 AD2d 634; Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 459). In response, the plaintiffs submitted no proof, only speculation, as to what actually may have caused the fall (see Pianforini v Kelties Bum Steer, supra). The conclusory affidavits supplied by the plaintiffs contradicted prior deposition testimony and do not constitute the sort of evidence needed to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Humphreys v Veneziano, 268 AD2d 461; see also Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 728, 747 N.Y.2d 792, 747 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajgopaul-v-toys-r-us-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack