Shelley v. Lucille Roberts Health Spa, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelley v. Lucille Roberts Health Spa, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 64, 678 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 64 (Shelley v. Lucille Roberts Health Spa, Inc.) 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

Shelley v. Lucille Roberts Health Spa, Inc., 254 A.D.2d 64, 678 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered November 21, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s cross motion was properly denied since, regardless of the quality of plaintiffs opposition to the motion, defendant as proponent of the motion failed, as a threshold matter, to make the requisite prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 852). Specifically, defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any triable issue as to whether it had had notice, actual or constructive, of the hazardous condition upon its premises to which plaintiff attributes her harm (cf., Strowman v Great Ail. & Pac. Tea Co., 252 AD2d 384). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered November 21, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s cross motion was properly denied since, regardless of the quality of plaintiffs opposition to the motion, defendant as proponent of the motion failed, as a threshold matter, to make the requisite prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 852). Specifically, defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any triable issue as to whether it had had notice, actual or constructive, of the hazardous condition upon its premises to which plaintiff attributes her harm (cf., Strowman v Great Ail. & Pac. Tea Co., 252 AD2d 384). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 64, 678 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelley-v-lucille-roberts-health-spa-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack