From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roveccio v. Oak Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2008
51 A.D.3d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-05234.

May 27, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated May 1, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Levine Gilbert, New York, N.Y. (Harvey A. Levine of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff brought this action after she allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice while descending the stairway leading from her condominium to the street below. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition ( see Schmidt v DiPerno, 25 AD3d 545, 546). The evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual notice of an alleged recurrent dangerous condition regarding pooled water on the steps and thus was chargeable with constructive notice of each specific occurrence of the condition ( see Andujar v Benenson Inv. Co., 299 AD2d 503). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Roveccio v. Oak Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2008
51 A.D.3d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Roveccio v. Oak Park

Case Details

Full title:JOAN ROVECCIO, Appellant, v. OAK PARK AT DOUGLASTON UNIT OWNERS…

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

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

51 A.D.3d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4854
858 N.Y.S.2d 384

Citing Cases

Danapas v. Temco Serv. Indus

That motion was denied without prejudice to renew. In support of the renewed motion for summary judgment, the…

Greco v. Starbucks Coffee Co.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous…