Valenti v. Ferrara Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valenti v. Ferrara Brothers, Inc.

282 A.D.2d 447, 722 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3293

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 447 (Valenti v. Ferrara Brothers, 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

Valenti v. Ferrara Brothers, Inc., 282 A.D.2d 447, 722 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated April 4, 2000, which denied its 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.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition which caused him to slip and fall (see, Mercer v City of New York, 88 NY2d 955; Cellini v Waldbaum, Inc., 262 AD2d 345; Moorman v Huntington Hosp., 262 AD2d 290). Thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated April 4, 2000, which denied its 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.

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition which caused him to slip and fall (see, Mercer v City of New York, 88 NY2d 955; Cellini v Waldbaum, Inc., 262 AD2d 345; Moorman v Huntington Hosp., 262 AD2d 290). Thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 447, 722 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valenti-v-ferrara-brothers-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack