From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cynar v. U.S. Trust Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 2004
7 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-08067.

Decided May 24, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated August 13, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Christopher P. DiGiulio, New York, N.Y. (Gail Schlanger of counsel), for appellant.

Lipsig, Shapey, Manus Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Christopher J. Crawford] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was cleaning one of the offices located on the seventh floor of a building owned by her employer and leased by the defendant when she tripped over a cord of a space heater which allegedly belonged to one of the defendant's employees.

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition ( see Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Katsoris v. Waldbaum, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 511, 512; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. General awareness that employees sometimes brought space heaters to work was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the particular condition which caused the plaintiff to fall ( see Kershner v. Pathmark Stores, 280 A.D.2d 583, 584; Chemont v. Pathmark Supermarkets, 279 A.D.2d 545; Halperin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, 236 A.D.2d 514, 515; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., supra at 591).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining arguments.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, COZIER and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cynar v. U.S. Trust Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 2004
7 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Cynar v. U.S. Trust Corp.

Case Details

Full title:TERESA CYNAR, respondent, v. U.S. TRUST CORPORATION, appellant

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

Date published: May 24, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

Garcia v. Town of Babylon Indus. Dev. Agency

Under those circumstances, defendant Creative has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it lacked…

Nunez v. Bell Atlantic

Not knowing who owned or installed the telephone equipment, the plaintiff commenced this action against the…