Watson v. Horizon Developers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. Horizon Developers, Inc.

286 A.D.2d 764, 730 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8647

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 764 (Watson v. Horizon Developers, 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

Watson v. Horizon Developers, Inc., 286 A.D.2d 764, 730 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated September 1, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the roof which caused it to collapse during a fire (see, CPLR 3212 [a]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary [765]*765judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated September 1, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the roof which caused it to collapse during a fire (see, CPLR 3212 [a]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary [765]*765judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 764, 730 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-horizon-developers-inc-nyappdiv-2001.