Santos v. Miguel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santos v. Miguel

271 A.D.2d 517, 706 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 517 (Santos v. Miguel) 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

Santos v. Miguel, 271 A.D.2d 517, 706 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated June 1, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant established a prima facie case that she neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition which allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries (see, Dima v Breslin Realty, 240 AD2d 359; [518]*518Ferris v County of Suffolk, 174 AD2d 70). The plaintiffs evidence in opposition to the motion consisted, inter alia, of photographs and a conclusory affidavit of a private investigator who inspected the walkway on the defendant’s premises where the accident occurred, and was insufficient to raise a triable question of fact on this issue.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated June 1, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant established a prima facie case that she neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition which allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries (see, Dima v Breslin Realty, 240 AD2d 359; [518]*518Ferris v County of Suffolk, 174 AD2d 70). The plaintiffs evidence in opposition to the motion consisted, inter alia, of photographs and a conclusory affidavit of a private investigator who inspected the walkway on the defendant’s premises where the accident occurred, and was insufficient to raise a triable question of fact on this issue.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 517, 706 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-miguel-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack