Treglia v. Colgate University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Treglia v. Colgate University

70 A.D.3d 1516, 893 N.Y.S.2d 776

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1516 (Treglia v. Colgate University) 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

Treglia v. Colgate University, 70 A.D.3d 1516, 893 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman I. Siegel, A.J.), entered May 28, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he struck his head on an open window grate at defendant’s gymnasium. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiffs submissions in opposition to the motion raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the window grate (see Champagne v Peck, 59 AD3d 1130 [2009]; George v New York City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 143 [2007]; Alexander v New York City Tr., 34 AD3d 312, 313-314 [2006]). We reject the contention of defendant that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of proximate cause inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs injury was not the result of the allegedly defective condition of the window grate (see Powers v St. Bernadette’s R.C. Church, 309 AD2d 1219 [2003]). Present— Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman I. Siegel, A.J.), entered May 28, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he struck his head on an open window grate at defendant’s gymnasium. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiffs submissions in opposition to the motion raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the window grate (see Champagne v Peck, 59 AD3d 1130 [2009]; George v New York City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 143 [2007]; Alexander v New York City Tr., 34 AD3d 312, 313-314 [2006]). We reject the contention of defendant that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of proximate cause inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs injury was not the result of the allegedly defective condition of the window grate (see Powers v St. Bernadette’s R.C. Church, 309 AD2d 1219 [2003]). Present— Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 1516, 893 N.Y.S.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treglia-v-colgate-university-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack