Weinreb v. Access Northern-Security Control, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinreb v. Access Northern-Security Control, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 539, 708 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843

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

DecidedMay 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 539 (Weinreb v. Access Northern-Security Control, 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

Weinreb v. Access Northern-Security Control, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 539, 708 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Access Northern Security Control, Inc., a/k/a Access Control International appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Kramer, J.), dated August 12, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip and fall accident, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice thereof (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). We agree with the Supreme Court that, after the appellant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff came forward with sufficient admissible evidence in opposition to the motion to create an issue of fact as to whether the appellant created the alleged dangerous condition. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 defendant Access Northern Security Control, Inc., a/k/a Access Control International appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Kramer, J.), dated August 12, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip and fall accident, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice thereof (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). We agree with the Supreme Court that, after the appellant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff came forward with sufficient admissible evidence in opposition to the motion to create an issue of fact as to whether the appellant created the alleged dangerous condition. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 539, 708 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinreb-v-access-northern-security-control-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack