From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trabolse v. Rizzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 2000
275 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

August 7, 2000.


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 9, 1999, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to come forward with evidence showing that the defendants had either created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof ( see, Goodwin v. Knolls at Stony Brook Homeowners Assn., 251 A.D.2d 451). However, in their opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs merely speculated that the defendants created the icy condition by negligently shoveling the driveway where the injured plaintiff fell. Their theory was not supported by any evidentiary proof in admissible form and, therefore, the motion was properly granted ( see, Gustavsson v. County of Westchester, 264 A.D.2d 408; Gittler v. K.G.H. Realty Corp., 258 A.D.2d 504; Davis v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 356).

Ritter, J.P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Trabolse v. Rizzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 2000
275 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Trabolse v. Rizzo

Case Details

Full title:MARIA TRABOLSE et al., Appellants, v. ANTHONY J. RIZZO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 7, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
712 N.Y.S.2d 401

Citing Cases

Starkou v. City of N.Y.

The 1080 defendants demonstrated that, as owner occupants of their two-family residence, they had no…

Schor v. City of New York

In opposition to the motions, the plaintiffs merely speculated that one or more of the defendants must have…