Viceroy v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Viceroy v. City of Yonkers

289 A.D.2d 224, 734 N.Y.S.2d 469, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11743

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 224 (Viceroy v. City of Yonkers) 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

Viceroy v. City of Yonkers, 289 A.D.2d 224, 734 N.Y.S.2d 469, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 15, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure establish a prima facie case, made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant will not be held liable for a dangerous or defective condition existing on its property unless there is evidence that it created the condition, or had actual or constructive notice of its existence and a reasonable time to remedy the defect (see, Brown-Phifer v Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 AD2d 564, lv denied 96 NY2d 721; Goldin v Riker, 273 AD2d 197). The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint at the close of his case-in-chief because there was insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that the defendant either created the alleged dangerous condition or had notice of it. The plaintiff’s claim that the Supreme Court erred in holding that the doctrine of assumption of the risk provided an additional basis for dismissal is not dispositive in light of the plaintiff’s failure to make out a prima facie case of negligence in the first instance. Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Prudenti, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 15, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure establish a prima facie case, made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant will not be held liable for a dangerous or defective condition existing on its property unless there is evidence that it created the condition, or had actual or constructive notice of its existence and a reasonable time to remedy the defect (see, Brown-Phifer v Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 AD2d 564, lv denied 96 NY2d 721; Goldin v Riker, 273 AD2d 197). The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint at the close of his case-in-chief because there was insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that the defendant either created the alleged dangerous condition or had notice of it. The plaintiff’s claim that the Supreme Court erred in holding that the doctrine of assumption of the risk provided an additional basis for dismissal is not dispositive in light of the plaintiff’s failure to make out a prima facie case of negligence in the first instance. Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 224, 734 N.Y.S.2d 469, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viceroy-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack