From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seidenberg v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-03855

Submitted March 4, 2003.

April 14, 2003.

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 7, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dorfman, Lynch Knoebel, Nyack, N.Y. (Dennis E. A. Lynch of counsel), for appellant.

Randall B. Smith, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof in admissible form that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Seidenberg v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Seidenberg v. Paul

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD SEIDENBERG, appellant, v. HOWARD PAUL, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 498

Citing Cases

Avellino v. Trizechahn Newport Inc.

Accordingly, its cross motion "should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's…