Seidenberg v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidenberg v. Paul

304 A.D.2d 645, 757 N.Y.S.2d 498

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 645 (Seidenberg v. Paul) 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

Seidenberg v. Paul, 304 A.D.2d 645, 757 N.Y.S.2d 498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 7, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof in admissible form that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 7, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof in admissible form that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 645, 757 N.Y.S.2d 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidenberg-v-paul-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack