Santiago v. Manhattan College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Manhattan College

295 A.D.2d 210, 744 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6562

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

DecidedJune 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 210 (Santiago v. Manhattan College) 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

Santiago v. Manhattan College, 295 A.D.2d 210, 744 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 24, 2001, which denied the motion of third-party defendant Marriott Management Services Corp. and the cross motion of defendant Manhattan College for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly fell and injured herself when she slipped upon confetti-like paper lying upon the floor of defendant’s premises. The motion and cross motion for summary judgment, premised upon defendant’s claimed lack of notice of an opportunity to remedy the alleged hazard, were properly denied since the summary judgment movants did not meet their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that defendant did not have notice, actual or constructive, of the claimed hazard. Indeed, the evidence of record indicates that plaintiff fell in an area regularly used by defendant’s students to construct signs announcing campus events and provides support to plaintiff’s contention that defendant was aware of and administratively involved in the sign-making activity and thus had knowledge of the condition of the premises in its aftermath (see, Giuffrida v Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 279 AD2d 403). We need not reach the argument of the assumption of risk raised for the first time on appeal. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 24, 2001, which denied the motion of third-party defendant Marriott Management Services Corp. and the cross motion of defendant Manhattan College for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly fell and injured herself when she slipped upon confetti-like paper lying upon the floor of defendant’s premises. The motion and cross motion for summary judgment, premised upon defendant’s claimed lack of notice of an opportunity to remedy the alleged hazard, were properly denied since the summary judgment movants did not meet their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that defendant did not have notice, actual or constructive, of the claimed hazard. Indeed, the evidence of record indicates that plaintiff fell in an area regularly used by defendant’s students to construct signs announcing campus events and provides support to plaintiff’s contention that defendant was aware of and administratively involved in the sign-making activity and thus had knowledge of the condition of the premises in its aftermath (see, Giuffrida v Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 279 AD2d 403). We need not reach the argument of the assumption of risk raised for the first time on appeal. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 210, 744 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-manhattan-college-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack