Vera v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vera v. Fishman

14 A.D.3d 550, 787 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 381

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 550 (Vera v. Fishman) 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

Vera v. Fishman, 14 A.D.3d 550, 787 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the [551]*551defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated September 24, 2003, which denied their 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.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall on liquid while descending a basement staircase within the defendants’ home. The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they created the condition complained of or had notice thereof (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, 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, the [551]*551defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated September 24, 2003, which denied their 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.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall on liquid while descending a basement staircase within the defendants’ home. The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they created the condition complained of or had notice thereof (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 550, 787 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vera-v-fishman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack