From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Guy Pratt, Inc. [2d Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 2, 1999
(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 2, 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 10, 1999

August 2, 1999

Ziegler Robinson (Seligson Rothman Rothman, New York, N Y [Martin S. Rothman, Benjamin Robinson, and Alyne I. Diamond] of counsel), for appellant.

Kroll, Rubin Fiorella, Mineola, N.Y. (Stanley E. Orzechowski and Heather G. Golin of counsel), for respondent Guy Pratt, Inc.

Ronan, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Jacqueline M. Kucich of counsel), for respondent Valente Contracting Corporation.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated May 18, 1998, as granted those branches of the defendants' respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he stepped into a hole in his driveway and fell. He commenced this action against the contractor and subcontractor that replaced the driveway apron and sidewalk adjoining his property as part of a construction project for the municipality. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they neither created nor had notice of the defective condition ( see generally, Raimo v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 530; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590). We conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

The evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to the motions was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendants' liability. Mere proof that the defendants were involved in the construction project prior to the date of the plaintiff's accident was insufficient ( see, Perrone v. Waldbaum, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 517; Raimo v. Brown, supra).

BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, THOMPSON, and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lewis v. Guy Pratt, Inc. [2d Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 2, 1999
(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 2, 1999)
Case details for

Lewis v. Guy Pratt, Inc. [2d Dept 1999

Case Details

Full title:MILLET LEWIS, appellant, v. GUY PRATT, INC., et al., respondents (and a…

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

Date published: Aug 2, 1999

Citations

(N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 2, 1999)