Raykin v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raykin v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

6 A.D.3d 418, 774 N.Y.S.2d 345

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

DecidedApril 5, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 418 (Raykin v. Trump Village Construction Corp.) 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

Raykin v. Trump Village Construction Corp., 6 A.D.3d 418, 774 N.Y.S.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 24, 2003, 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 allegedly slipped and fell on an oily substance on the staircase of the defendant’s building. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the condition or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff to fall Csee Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Meyerson v Waldbaum, Inc., 265 AD2d 535 [1999]; Rotunno v Pathmark, 220 AD2d 570 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Myers v Waldbaum’s, Inc., 303 AD2d 389 [2003]; Gonforone v Southland Corp., 300 AD2d 443 [2002]; Meyer v Pathmark Stores, 290 AD2d 423 [2002]; Cuddy v Waldbaum, Inc., 230 AD2d 703 [1996]; Pirillo v Longwood Assoc., 179 AD2d 744 [1992]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, 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 (Schneier, J.), dated January 24, 2003, 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 allegedly slipped and fell on an oily substance on the staircase of the defendant’s building. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the condition or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff to fall Csee Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Meyerson v Waldbaum, Inc., 265 AD2d 535 [1999]; Rotunno v Pathmark, 220 AD2d 570 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Myers v Waldbaum’s, Inc., 303 AD2d 389 [2003]; Gonforone v Southland Corp., 300 AD2d 443 [2002]; Meyer v Pathmark Stores, 290 AD2d 423 [2002]; Cuddy v Waldbaum, Inc., 230 AD2d 703 [1996]; Pirillo v Longwood Assoc., 179 AD2d 744 [1992]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 418, 774 N.Y.S.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raykin-v-trump-village-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack