Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc., 2004-00660.

Decision Date23 May 2005
Docket Number2004-00660.
Citation2005 NY Slip Op 04177,795 N.Y.S.2d 728,18 A.D.3d 693
PartiesJUANITA CRUCETA et al., Respondents, v. FUNNEL EQUITIES, INC., Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Juanita Cruceta when she tripped and fell on a cracked step in front of the building where she worked.

In order to prove a prima facie case of negligence in a trip and fall case, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436, 437 [1998]). Assuming that the defendant was responsible for maintaining the area of the premises where the accident occurred, it established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the existence of an allegedly dangerous condition (see Bongiorno v Penske Auto. Ctr., 289 AD2d 520, 521 [2001]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., supra). The plaintiffs, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Ezzo v 2102 Union Blvd., 278 AD2d 447 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Flores v. Cmty. Hous. Mgmt. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 21, 2019
    ...in the boiler room, or have actual or constructive knowledge of any hazard in the boiler room. Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 693, 694, 795 N.Y.S.2d 728, 729 (2 Dept. 2005) (to establish liability, "plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which ca......
  • Grande v. Suffolk Grand, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 31764(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/12/2008)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 12, 2008
    ...the condition, it has met its prima facie burden on a summary judgment motion to dismiss the complaint. See, Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 693 (2nd Dep't 2005); Bongiorno v. Penske Auto Center, 289 A.D.2d 520 (2nd Dep't Defendant Suffolk having met its prima facie burden, the ......
  • Contu v. Albert
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 23, 2005

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