Tiriro v. Westland South Shore Mall, LP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tiriro v. Westland South Shore Mall, LP

291 A.D.2d 489, 739 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1796

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 489 (Tiriro v. Westland South Shore Mall, LP) 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

Tiriro v. Westland South Shore Mall, LP, 291 A.D.2d 489, 739 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to [490]*490recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered October 11, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell over part of a platform supporting children’s rides in a shopping mall. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff sufficiently rebutted the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment when she presented evidence that at the time of the alleged accident the mall was so crowded that the hazard complained of was not apparent. Accordingly, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the hazardous condition complained of was open and obvious (see, Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to [490]*490recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered October 11, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell over part of a platform supporting children’s rides in a shopping mall. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff sufficiently rebutted the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment when she presented evidence that at the time of the alleged accident the mall was so crowded that the hazard complained of was not apparent. Accordingly, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the hazardous condition complained of was open and obvious (see, Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 489, 739 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiriro-v-westland-south-shore-mall-lp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack