Valeris v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valeris v. Friedman

231 A.D.2d 565, 647 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9242

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 565 (Valeris v. Friedman) 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

Valeris v. Friedman, 231 A.D.2d 565, 647 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated June 7, 1995, which granted the motion of the defendant John Glenn for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant John Glenn’s motion papers which made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence indicating that Glenn created the allegedly hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it. Glenn’s motion was therefore properly granted (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Becker v Waldbaum, Inc., 221 AD2d 396; Batiancela v Staten Is. Mall, 189 AD2d 743; Pirillo v Longwood [566]*566Assocs., 179 AD2d 744). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated June 7, 1995, which granted the motion of the defendant John Glenn for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant John Glenn’s motion papers which made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence indicating that Glenn created the allegedly hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it. Glenn’s motion was therefore properly granted (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Becker v Waldbaum, Inc., 221 AD2d 396; Batiancela v Staten Is. Mall, 189 AD2d 743; Pirillo v Longwood [566]*566Assocs., 179 AD2d 744). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 565, 647 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valeris-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack