Zaldivar v. St. Rita's Roman Catholic Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaldivar v. St. Rita's Roman Catholic Church

125 A.D.3d 771, 4 N.Y.S.3d 64

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2015

Docket2013-05659

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 771 (Zaldivar v. St. Rita's Roman Catholic Church) 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

Zaldivar v. St. Rita's Roman Catholic Church, 125 A.D.3d 771, 4 N.Y.S.3d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated February 14, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly ascended two steps to reach the platform of an altar in the defendant’s church to take a group photograph after a special mass. As the plaintiff attempted to descend the altar, she allegedly fell from the platform area to the floor, and sustained personal injuries. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall and that the altar and the steps leading up to the altar were not in a hazardous condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

In support of the motion, the defendant submitted evidence, including the transcript of the plaintiffs deposition testimony and photographs of the accident site, which was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify what had caused her to fall (see Deputron v A & J Tours, Inc., 106 AD3d 944 [2013]; Dennis v Lakhani, 102 AD3d 651 [2013]), and that the altar and the steps leading up to the altar were not in a hazardous condition (see Vazquez v Gun Hill Assoc., LLC, 122 AD3d 723, 723-724 [2014]; Feldman v Merrick Union Free Sch. Dist., 122 AD3d 667, 668 [2014]; Balashanskaya v Polymed Community Care Ctr., PC., 122 AD3d 558, 559 [2014]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.R, Dillon, Miller and LaSalle, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated February 14, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly ascended two steps to reach the platform of an altar in the defendant’s church to take a group photograph after a special mass. As the plaintiff attempted to descend the altar, she allegedly fell from the platform area to the floor, and sustained personal injuries. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall and that the altar and the steps leading up to the altar were not in a hazardous condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

In support of the motion, the defendant submitted evidence, including the transcript of the plaintiffs deposition testimony and photographs of the accident site, which was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify what had caused her to fall (see Deputron v A & J Tours, Inc., 106 AD3d 944 [2013]; Dennis v Lakhani, 102 AD3d 651 [2013]), and that the altar and the steps leading up to the altar were not in a hazardous condition (see Vazquez v Gun Hill Assoc., LLC, 122 AD3d 723, 723-724 [2014]; Feldman v Merrick Union Free Sch. Dist., 122 AD3d 667, 668 [2014]; Balashanskaya v Polymed Community Care Ctr., PC., 122 AD3d 558, 559 [2014]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.R, Dillon, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 771, 4 N.Y.S.3d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaldivar-v-st-ritas-roman-catholic-church-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack