Rodriguez v. Notre Dame Academy of Staten Island

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Notre Dame Academy of Staten Island

274 A.D.2d 509, 712 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8201

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

DecidedJuly 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 509 (Rodriguez v. Notre Dame Academy of Staten Island) 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

Rodriguez v. Notre Dame Academy of Staten Island, 274 A.D.2d 509, 712 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs [510]*510appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 8, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

It is well settled that in order to impose liability on an owner of real property when a plaintiff slips and falls on a patch of ice, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that the owner created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Marasia v Noyl Coram, Inc., 260 AD2d 607; Davis v City of New York, 255 AD2d 356; Sellet v United Artists Theaters, 251 AD2d 488). Here, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the ice on which the plaintiff slipped and fell or that the defendant had created the icy condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and third-party complaint (see, Kimmel v Ground Round, 272 AD2d 449). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein 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, etc., the plaintiffs [510]*510appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 8, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

It is well settled that in order to impose liability on an owner of real property when a plaintiff slips and falls on a patch of ice, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that the owner created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Marasia v Noyl Coram, Inc., 260 AD2d 607; Davis v City of New York, 255 AD2d 356; Sellet v United Artists Theaters, 251 AD2d 488). Here, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the ice on which the plaintiff slipped and fell or that the defendant had created the icy condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and third-party complaint (see, Kimmel v Ground Round, 272 AD2d 449). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 509, 712 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-notre-dame-academy-of-staten-island-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack