Seyfert v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seyfert v. State

275 A.D.2d 317, 712 N.Y.S.2d 408

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

DecidedAugust 7, 2000

DocketClaim No. 92844

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 317 (Seyfert v. State) 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

Seyfert v. State, 275 A.D.2d 317, 712 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated August 11, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in its favor as a matter of law, dismissed the claims.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly determined that the claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the alleged defect had existed for such a length of time as to charge the defendant with constructive notice of its presence (see, Idel v Mitchell, 158 NY 134, 139; Buckley v Sun & Surf Beach Club, 268 AD2d 496; see also, Glenn v Oakdale Contr. Co., 257 NY 497, 499-500). Accordingly, the claims were properly dismissed (see, CPLR 4401). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated August 11, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in its favor as a matter of law, dismissed the claims.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly determined that the claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the alleged defect had existed for such a length of time as to charge the defendant with constructive notice of its presence (see, Idel v Mitchell, 158 NY 134, 139; Buckley v Sun & Surf Beach Club, 268 AD2d 496; see also, Glenn v Oakdale Contr. Co., 257 NY 497, 499-500). Accordingly, the claims were properly dismissed (see, CPLR 4401). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 317, 712 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seyfert-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack