Rosa v. Mendon Leasing Corp.

130 A.D.3d 708, 11 N.Y.S.3d 867
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 2015
Docket2014-03338
StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.3d 708 (Rosa v. Mendon Leasing Corp.) 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
Rosa v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 130 A.D.3d 708, 11 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated December 11, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On December 7, 2010, the injured plaintiff, Anibal Rosa, while climbing into the cargo area of a truck rented by his employer from the defendant, allegedly slipped and fell on a defect in the floor of the truck and sustained injuries. Subsequently, the injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

*709 The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff and a manager of the defendant, which established that the defendant neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition on the floor of the truck (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Sinclair v Chau, 117 AD3d 713 [2014]; Cintron v New York City Tr. Auth., 61 AD3d 803, 804 [2009]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Eng, P.J., Hall, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History
492 N.E.2d 774 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Cintron v. New York City Transit Authority
61 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Sinclair v. Chau
117 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 A.D.3d 708, 11 N.Y.S.3d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-v-mendon-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-2015.