Vittorio v. U-Haul Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vittorio v. U-Haul Co.

52 A.D.3d 823, 861 N.Y.S.2d 726

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

DecidedJune 24, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 823 (Vittorio v. U-Haul Co.) 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

Vittorio v. U-Haul Co., 52 A.D.3d 823, 861 N.Y.S.2d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants U-Haul Company, U-Haul Company of New York, Inc., and U-Haul International appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated June 1, 2007, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants failed to make a prima facie showing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Hudlin v Epicurean Deli, 46 AD3d 752 [2007]). In addition, the appellants did not submit any evidence to establish their contention that the allegedly defective condition was trivial (see Reeves v New York City Tr. Auth., 276 AD2d 543 [2000]). The appellants merely pointed to gaps in the plaintiffs proof, rather than affirmatively demonstrating the merit of their defense, and thus they failed to carry their burden as movants seeking summary judgment (see Pappalardo v Long Is. R.R. Co., 36 AD3d 878 [2007]; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531 [2003]). We reach this conclusion without considering the decedent’s pre-action examination under oath, taken by the defendant Republic Western Insurance Company, which the appellants contend is inadmissible against them (cf. CELR 3117 [a] [3]). Rivera, J.P, Ritter, Miller and Dillon, 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 defendants U-Haul Company, U-Haul Company of New York, Inc., and U-Haul International appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated June 1, 2007, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants failed to make a prima facie showing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Hudlin v Epicurean Deli, 46 AD3d 752 [2007]). In addition, the appellants did not submit any evidence to establish their contention that the allegedly defective condition was trivial (see Reeves v New York City Tr. Auth., 276 AD2d 543 [2000]). The appellants merely pointed to gaps in the plaintiffs proof, rather than affirmatively demonstrating the merit of their defense, and thus they failed to carry their burden as movants seeking summary judgment (see Pappalardo v Long Is. R.R. Co., 36 AD3d 878 [2007]; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531 [2003]). We reach this conclusion without considering the decedent’s pre-action examination under oath, taken by the defendant Republic Western Insurance Company, which the appellants contend is inadmissible against them (cf. CELR 3117 [a] [3]). Rivera, J.P, Ritter, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 823, 861 N.Y.S.2d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vittorio-v-u-haul-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack