Rivera v. People's Choice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. People's Choice

281 A.D.2d 611, 722 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3105

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 611 (Rivera v. People's Choice) 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

Rivera v. People's Choice, 281 A.D.2d 611, 722 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated March 16, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion was properly granted. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated March 16, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion was properly granted. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 611, 722 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-peoples-choice-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack