Willard v. Columbia University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willard v. Columbia University

28 A.D.3d 207, 812 N.Y.S.2d 510

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

DecidedApril 4, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 207 (Willard v. Columbia University) 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

Willard v. Columbia University, 28 A.D.3d 207, 812 N.Y.S.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered January 18, 2005, which granted the motion of defendant R.ET. Restaurant Corp. and the cross motion of defendant Columbia University for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a clear liquid substance on the floor of a long corridor located in a building owned by defendant Columbia University. The site of the fall was approximately 50 feet from the entrance of a restaurant operated by defendant R.ET. Restaurant Corp. under a licensing agreement with Columbia University.

Inasmuch as the evidence establishes that neither defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, the complaint was properly dismissed (see Rivera v 2160 Realty Co., L.L.C., 4 NY3d 837 [2005]). Summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant R.ET. was additionally warranted by reason of the unrefuted evidence demonstrating that Columbia University, and not the restaurant, owned, maintained and controlled the subject corridor.

Flaintiff s remaining contentions are unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered January 18, 2005, which granted the motion of defendant R.ET. Restaurant Corp. and the cross motion of defendant Columbia University for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a clear liquid substance on the floor of a long corridor located in a building owned by defendant Columbia University. The site of the fall was approximately 50 feet from the entrance of a restaurant operated by defendant R.ET. Restaurant Corp. under a licensing agreement with Columbia University.

Inasmuch as the evidence establishes that neither defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, the complaint was properly dismissed (see Rivera v 2160 Realty Co., L.L.C., 4 NY3d 837 [2005]). Summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant R.ET. was additionally warranted by reason of the unrefuted evidence demonstrating that Columbia University, and not the restaurant, owned, maintained and controlled the subject corridor.

Flaintiff s remaining contentions are unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 207, 812 N.Y.S.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willard-v-columbia-university-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack