Sites v. Van Dam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sites v. Van Dam

279 A.D.2d 624, 719 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 948

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 624 (Sites v. Van Dam) 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

Sites v. Van Dam, 279 A.D.2d 624, 719 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover dam[625]*625ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated May 26, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice that had formed in the joint of two concrete sidewalk slabs that were separated by a height differential. In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants met their initial burden of showing that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. Although a question of fact was raised as to whether the defendants had notice that one of the concrete slabs had become tilted, there was no evidence that they had notice that ice could form on the resulting joint and create a slipping hazard. In addition, the plaintiffs’ evidence was too speculative to establish that the defect was in existence for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendants to discover and remedy it. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover dam[625]*625ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated May 26, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice that had formed in the joint of two concrete sidewalk slabs that were separated by a height differential. In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants met their initial burden of showing that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. Although a question of fact was raised as to whether the defendants had notice that one of the concrete slabs had become tilted, there was no evidence that they had notice that ice could form on the resulting joint and create a slipping hazard. In addition, the plaintiffs’ evidence was too speculative to establish that the defect was in existence for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendants to discover and remedy it. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 624, 719 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sites-v-van-dam-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack