From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wade-Westbrooke v. Eshaghian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 20, 2005
21 A.D.3d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6518.

September 20, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered March 10, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their third-party claim for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Goldberg Carlton, Esqs., New York (Robert H. Goldberg of counsel), for appellants.

David A. Zelman, Brooklyn, for Kathryn Wade-Westbrooke, respondent.

Cohen Kuhn Associates, New York (Erika L. Hartley of counsel), for XYZ Cleaning Contractors, Inc., respondent.

Before: Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


Appellants, in support of that branch of their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to make the requisite showing that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged hazard. While appellants stress that plaintiff did not notice the hazard on the morning of, and just prior to the accident, that circumstance does not definitively establish their lack of notice ( see Straus v. New Wah Fung Corp., 269 AD2d 140). Since there are issues of fact as to whether negligence on the part of appellants or XYZ caused plaintiff's harm, appellants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied.


Summaries of

Wade-Westbrooke v. Eshaghian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 20, 2005
21 A.D.3d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Wade-Westbrooke v. Eshaghian

Case Details

Full title:KATHRYN WADE-WESTBROOKE, Respondent, v. EBRAHIM ESHAGHIAN et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 20, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 6752
802 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

Roman v. Compare Supermarket

Furthermore, contrary to defendant's argument, plaintiff's testimony that she did not notice the condition on…

Porco v. Marshalls Department Stores

The record, including plaintiff's description of the configuration of the substance and defendants' witness's…