Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora
| Decision Date | 11 March 1994 |
| Citation | 609 N.Y.S.2d 745,202 A.D.2d 984 |
| Parties | Joseph R. CIESINSKI, Respondent, v. TOWN OF AURORA, County of Erie, Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, Appellants, Lawrence Bieler and Bieler Industrial Floor Maintenance, Inc., Respondents. COUNTY OF ERIE, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. AURORA TOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark Giangreco by Mark Giangreco, Buffalo, for appellant, Town of Aurora.
Richard L. Woll by Richard Woll, Buffalo, for appellants, Lawrence Bieler and Bieler Indus. Floor
Patrick H. Nemoyer by Kristie Tokasz, Buffalo, for appellants County of Erie, and Buffalo and Erie County Public Library.
Christine G. Labarre by Terrence Higgins, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN and DAVIS, JJ.
Supreme Court properly denied the motions for summary judgment of defendants, County of Erie, Buffalo and Erie County Public Library and Town of Aurora and of third-party defendant Aurora Town Public Library (defendants) dismissing the complaint. Defendants have not pursued in their briefs the issue raised in their motion papers in Supreme Court that they were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to offer proof of negligent application of wax or negligent refinishing of the floors. We, therefore, deem that issue abandoned (see, First Natl. Bank of Amenia v. Mountain Food Enters., 159 A.D.2d 900, 901, 553 N.Y.S.2d 233; Lamphear v. State of New York, 91 A.D.2d 791, 458 N.Y.S.2d 71).
Additionally, Supreme Court properly rejected the contention of the County of Erie and the Erie County Public Library that they were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition because they failed, in the first instance, to establish that they did not create that condition (see generally, Eddy v. Tops Friendly Mkts., 91 A.D.2d 1203, 459 N.Y.S.2d 196, aff'd, 59 N.Y.2d 692, 463 N.Y.S.2d 437, 450 N.E.2d 243).
Finally, the argument advanced by defendants for the first time on appeal that they were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that they did not create the alleged defective condition is not properly before us (see, Charlotte Lake Riv. Assoc. v. American Ins. Co., 68 A.D.2d 151, 154-155, 416 N.Y.S.2d 920). Similarly, the argument raised by defendant Town of Aurora and third-party defendant Aurora Town Public Library for the first time on appeal that they were entitled to summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carol L. Jones, Jones, Carol L. Jones & Jones-Carroll, Inc. v. Town of Carroll & Town Bd. of Town of Carroll
...not briefed any issues related to that cause of action and therefore have abandoned any such issues ( see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745). With respect to the first cause of action, in order to establish a substantive due process violation in the land-use......
-
Kimmel v. State
...part of her motion seeking discovery, and we therefore deem abandoned any issues with respect thereto ( see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745).Conclusion Accordingly, we conclude that the part of the order denying those parts of the motions of plaintiff and Logan......
-
D'Amico v. Corr. Med. Care, Inc.
...plaintiff has abandoned her sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress ( see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745). Turning to the merits, “[o]n these motions to dismiss, we accept the facts alleged in the [amended] complaint as true......
-
Gabriel v. Johnston's L.P.
...left the United States must return to this country for medical examinations within 60 days of trial ( see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745). We also note what we perceive to be the nature of plaintiffs' contentions on appeal. At this point, only two plainti......