Zwecker v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zwecker v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 933, 755 N.Y.S.2d 681, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2837

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 933 (Zwecker v. Bausch & Lomb, 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

Zwecker v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 933, 755 N.Y.S.2d 681, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Lunn, J.), entered March 8, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that he sustained when he allegedly slipped and fell in the lobby of defendant’s property on two consecutive snowy days in January 1999. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it lacked constructive notice of the existence of a dangerous condition (see Gentile v University of Rochester Med. Ctr., 292 AD2d 874 [2002]; Migli v Davenport, 249 AD2d 932, 933 [1998]). Because defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposing papers (see Migli, 249 AD2d at 933). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Lunn, J.), entered March 8, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that he sustained when he allegedly slipped and fell in the lobby of defendant’s property on two consecutive snowy days in January 1999. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it lacked constructive notice of the existence of a dangerous condition (see Gentile v University of Rochester Med. Ctr., 292 AD2d 874 [2002]; Migli v Davenport, 249 AD2d 932, 933 [1998]). Because defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposing papers (see Migli, 249 AD2d at 933). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 933, 755 N.Y.S.2d 681, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zwecker-v-bausch-lomb-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack