Tomao v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomao v. City of New York

61 A.D.3d 674, 876 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedApril 7, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 674 (Tomao 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

Tomao v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 674, 876 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated December 10, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this slip-and-fall case, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition created by water that had just been tracked into a school by the infant plaintiff (see Rodriguez v White Plains Pub. Schools, 35 AD3d 704, 705 [2006]; Hackbarth v McDonalds Corp., 31 AD3d 498, 499 [2006]; Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home, 248 AD2d 687 [1998]; Kovelsky v City Univ. of N.Y., 221 AD2d 234, 235 [1995]). Moreover, the defendants also made a prima facie showing that they did not fail to exercise that degree of reasonable care over the infant plaintiff that a parent of [675]*675ordinary prudence would have exercised under comparable circumstances (see Hilf v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 245 AD2d 261, 262 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 17 Misc 3d 1138(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52326(11).]

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated December 10, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this slip-and-fall case, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition created by water that had just been tracked into a school by the infant plaintiff (see Rodriguez v White Plains Pub. Schools, 35 AD3d 704, 705 [2006]; Hackbarth v McDonalds Corp., 31 AD3d 498, 499 [2006]; Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home, 248 AD2d 687 [1998]; Kovelsky v City Univ. of N.Y., 221 AD2d 234, 235 [1995]). Moreover, the defendants also made a prima facie showing that they did not fail to exercise that degree of reasonable care over the infant plaintiff that a parent of [675]*675ordinary prudence would have exercised under comparable circumstances (see Hilf v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 245 AD2d 261, 262 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 17 Misc 3d 1138(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52326(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 674, 876 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomao-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack