Rodriguez v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Town of Islip

89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.2d 601

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

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

Pincite

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]*1078granted 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

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]*1078granted 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.2d 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-town-of-islip-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack