From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beck v. Powerhouse Gym Merrick Road, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 9, 2000.

December 6, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated November 24, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 25, 1999, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Richard T. Sinrod, Massapequa, N.Y. (Judith Ellen Stone of counsel), for appellants.

Gordon Silber, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David Henry Sculnick of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that the piece of exercise equipment over which the injured plaintiff tripped was readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses (see, Lamia v. Federated Department Stores, 263 A.D.2d 498; Sewer v. Fat Albert's Warehouse, 235 A.D.2d 414; Blecher v. Holiday Health Fitness Ctr. of New York, 245 A.D.2d 687). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Casamassa v. Waldbaum's, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 659 [2d Dept., Oct. 23, 2000]).


Summaries of

Beck v. Powerhouse Gym Merrick Road, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Beck v. Powerhouse Gym Merrick Road, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN BECK, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. POWERHOUSE GYM MERRICK ROAD, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 6, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 900