From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosa v. Southren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 2004
8 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-07573.

Decided June 28, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 29, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Schloss Schloss, Pearl River, N.Y. (Jack Schloss of counsel), for appellants.

Baxter Smith, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Sim R. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. DAVID S. RITTER, BARRY A. COZIER, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained in a fall in the entrance vestibule of the defendant's office. However, in opposition to the defendant's prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Mansueto v. Worster, 1 A.D.3d 412; Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48; Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 A.D.2d 486; Boehme v. Edgar Fabrics, 248 A.D.2d 344). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rosa v. Southren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 2004
8 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rosa v. Southren

Case Details

Full title:CARMEN ROSA, ET AL., appellants, v. DAVID SOUTHREN, respondent

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

Date published: Jun 28, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 897

Citing Cases

Vergara v. a S Twins Const

However, he or she has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which is not…

Delorenzo v. Bales

The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiffs' cross motion.The…