Rodriguez v. White Plains Public Schools

35 A.D.3d 704, 826 N.Y.S.2d 425
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 704 (Rodriguez v. White Plains Public Schools) 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. White Plains Public Schools, 35 A.D.3d 704, 826 N.Y.S.2d 425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an ac[705]*705tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered December 12, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

MEMORANDA, Second Dept., December, 2006

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409 [2006]). The defendants satisfied their burden (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home, 248 AD2d 687 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.E, Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mantzoutsos v. 150 Street Produce Corp.
76 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Taylor v. Jaslove
61 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tomao v. City of New York
61 A.D.3d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Frazier v. City of New York
47 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Granera v. 32nd Street 990 Corp.
46 A.D.3d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Van Dina v. St. Francis Hospital
45 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Prusak v. New York City Housing Authority
43 A.D.3d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Miguel v. SJS Associates
40 A.D.3d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Allan v. Casperkill Country Club
38 A.D.3d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 A.D.3d 704, 826 N.Y.S.2d 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-white-plains-public-schools-nyappdiv-2006.