Aguirre v. Paul

Decision Date05 August 2008
Docket NumberNo. 2007-06693.,2007-06693.
Citation54 A.D.3d 302,862 N.Y.S.2d 580,2008 NY Slip Op 6541
PartiesMARIA ELENA AGUIRRE et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. LAWRENCE PAUL et al., Appellants-Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff Maria Elena Aguirre (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly fell after tripping on a torn rubber mat in a pet store operated by Coral Aquariums, Inc. (hereinafter Coral). She and her husband commenced the instant action against Coral and its president and sole shareholder, Lawrence Paul. More than one year after the incident, Aguirre discarded the shoes she had been wearing when she fell. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendants' renewed motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Paul in his individual capacity. The court granted that branch of the defendants' renewed motion which was to dismiss the complaint based on spoliation of evidence (Aguirre's shoes) to the extent of directing that an adverse inference charge be given at trial.

"A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" (Prusak v New York City Hous. Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2007]; see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 64 NY2d 670, 671 [1984]; Birthwright v Mid-City Sec., 268 AD2d 401 [2000]). In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the premises were negligently maintained, whether there was a dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to fall, and whether the defendants had notice of that dangerous condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' renewed motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendants' renewed motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Paul in his individual capacity. "A corporate officer is not held liable for the negligence of the corporation merely because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Abrams v. Berelson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 10 Abril 2012
    ...to discover and remedy it” ( Bloomfield v. Jericho Union Free School Dist., 80 A.D.3d 637, 638, 915 N.Y.S.2d 294; see Aguirre v. Paul, 54 A.D.3d 302, 862 N.Y.S.2d 580; Lezama v. 34–15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 A.D.3d 560, 792 N.Y.S.2d 123). This Court concluded on the prior appeal that the defe......
  • Ivy League Sch., Inc. v. Danick Indus., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 20 Agosto 2014
    ...who commits or participates in the commission of a tort may be held liable to injured third parties (see Aguirre v. Paul, 54 AD3d 302, 862 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2d Dept 2008] ). The “commission of a tort” doctrine permits personal liability to be imposed upon a corporate officer for misfeasance or ......
  • Emerson Enterprises Llc v. Kenneth Crosby N.Y. Llc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 15 Marzo 2011
    ......Aguirre v. Paul, 54 A.D.3d 302, 304, 862 N.Y.S.2d 580, 582 (2d Dept.2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In the instant case, Plaintiff ......
  • PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans W. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 19 Diciembre 2012
    ...commission” ( Hamlet at Willow Cr. Dev. Co., LLC v. Northeast Land Dev. Corp., 64 A.D.3d 85, 116, 878 N.Y.S.2d 97;see Aguirre v. Paul, 54 A.D.3d 302, 304, 862 N.Y.S.2d 580;Retropolis, Inc. v. 14th St. Dev. LLC, 17 A.D.3d 209, 211, 797 N.Y.S.2d 1;Greenway Plaza Off. Park–1 v. Metro Constr. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT