From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carter v. National Amusements, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 4, 2001.

October 22, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated June 22, 2000, as granted the defendant's motion and that branch of the separate motion of the third-party defendant Brunjes Blacktop, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Silver, Glinkenhouse, Floumanhaft Queen, Far Rockaway, N Y (Alan Queen of counsel), for appellant.

Gallet Dreyer Berkey, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John W. Manning and Morlan Ty Rogers of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Ronan, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Kevin P. Slattery of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

To impose liability on an owner of real property for injuries caused by a slip and fall on a patch of ice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the owner either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Marasia v. Noyl Coram, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 607). Here, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the patch of ice on which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell, or that the defendant had created the icy condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion and that branch of the separate motion of the third-party defendant Brunjes Blacktop, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Rodriguez v. Notre Dame Academy of Staten Is., 274 A.D.2d 509; Kimmel v. Ground Round, 272 A.D.2d 449; Herbst v. Nevele Country Club, 251 A.D.2d 864).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carter v. National Amusements, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Carter v. National Amusements, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK CARTER, appellant, v. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., d/b/a COMMACK…

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 756

Citing Cases

Walton v. Kenny

In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact to demonstrate that the owner either…

Moquin v. Romeo

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. After the defendants made a prima facie showing of their…