From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collado v. Riverside Park Mgt.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 7, 2011
86 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4671.

July 7, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Curan, Ahlers, Fiden Norris, LLP, White Plains (Charles B. Norris of counsel), for appellants.

Louis A. Badolato, Roslyn Harbor, for respondent.

Before: Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.


Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, we conclude that the motion court properly determined that an issue of fact exists whether defendants had notice of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition in the area of the accident that they routinely left unaddressed ( see Talavera v New York City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 135).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Collado v. Riverside Park Mgt.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 7, 2011
86 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Collado v. Riverside Park Mgt.

Case Details

Full title:EMELINA COLLADO, Respondent, v. RIVERSIDE PARK MANAGEMENT et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 7, 2011

Citations

86 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5852
926 N.Y.S.2d 287