Rodriguez v. Town of Islip

89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.2d 601
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2011·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The defendant County of Suffolk established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have prior written notice of a defect on a sidewalk that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall (see Suffolk County Charter § C8-2A; Regan v Town of N. Hempstead, 66 AD3d 863, 864 [2009]; Koehler v Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst, 42 AD3d 438 [2007]; Lysohir v County of Suffolk, 10 AD3d 638, 639 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Regan v Town of N. Hempstead, 66 AD3d at 864; Lysohir v County of Suffolk, 10 AD3d at 639). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have [1078] granted the County’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Rodriguez v. Town of Islip, 89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 1077 (Rodriguez v. Town of Islip) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gebhardt v. County of Suffolk
2019 NY Slip Op 2503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Dutka v. Odierno
2016 NY Slip Op 8196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Estate of Peretz v. Village of Great Neck Plaza
130 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Simon v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook
116 A.D.3d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Martens v. County of Suffolk
100 A.D.3d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)