From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sosa v. RS 2001, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 1, 2013
106 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-1

Maria SOSA, appellant, v. RS 2001, INC., et al., respondents.

H. Bruce Fischer, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Harriet Wong of counsel), for respondents.



H. Bruce Fischer, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Harriet Wong of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered December 6, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a piece of cardboard that was on the floor of the defendants' premises.

On their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the piece of cardboard was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by the reasonable use of the plaintiff's senses ( see Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 A.D.2d 486, 745 N.Y.S.2d 554;see also Leib v. Silo Rest., Inc., 26 A.D.3d 359, 809 N.Y.S.2d 185). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly considered the transcripts of the parties' depositions ( see Boadu v. City of New York, 95 A.D.3d 918, 918–919, 944 N.Y.S.2d 265). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion.

The parties' remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination.


Summaries of

Sosa v. RS 2001, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 1, 2013
106 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Sosa v. RS 2001, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Maria SOSA, appellant, v. RS 2001, INC., et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 1, 2013

Citations

106 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3078
964 N.Y.S.2d 227

Citing Cases

Claros v. St. John's Univ.

In his affirmation in support of the motion for summary judgment, Chartwells counsel contends that the…

Villalba v. Daughney

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention,…