Serper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serper v. City of New York

284 A.D.2d 388, 726 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6060

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 388 (Serper v. City of New York) 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

Serper v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 388, 726 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 625 Fulton Associates and First New York Management Co. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 10, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

[389]*389The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the appellants, to recover damages for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a wet floor. In opposition to the appellants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see, Dwoskin v Burger King Corp., 249 AD2d 358; Galgan v Allied Staten Is. Co., 248 AD2d 585; Sparrock v City of New York, 219 AD2d 705). Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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, etc., the defendants 625 Fulton Associates and First New York Management Co. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 10, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

[389]*389The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the appellants, to recover damages for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a wet floor. In opposition to the appellants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see, Dwoskin v Burger King Corp., 249 AD2d 358; Galgan v Allied Staten Is. Co., 248 AD2d 585; Sparrock v City of New York, 219 AD2d 705). Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 388, 726 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serper-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack