Flores v. BAJ Holding Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 April 2012 |
| Parties | Catalina FLORES, respondent, v. BAJ HOLDING CORP., appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus (Gannon, Lawrence & Rosenfarb, New York, N.Y. [Lisa L. Gokhulsingh], of counsel), for appellant.
Peña & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx, N.Y. (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), entered August 8, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This action arises from the plaintiff's alleged slip and fall on black ice on the exterior stairs of the residential multiple dwelling in which she resided.
A real property owner or a party in possession or control of real property will be held liable for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it ( see Cantwell v. Fox Hill Community Assn., Inc., 87 A.D.3d 1106, 930 N.Y.S.2d 459; Crosthwaite v. Acadia Realty Trust, 62 A.D.3d 823, 879 N.Y.S.2d 554; Abbattista v. King's Grant Master Assn., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 439, 833 N.Y.S.2d 592; Nielsen v. Metro–North Commuter R.R. Co., 30 A.D.3d 497, 817 N.Y.S.2d 110). Thus, 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 ( see Santoliquido v. Roman Catholic Church of Holy Name of Jesus, 37 A.D.3d 815, 815–816, 830 N.Y.S.2d 778). Only after this threshold burden has been satisfied will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
Under the circumstances presented here, the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant ( see Medina v. La Fiura Dev. Corp., 69 A.D.3d 686, 895 N.Y.S.2d 98; Baines v. G & D Ventures, Inc., 64 A.D.3d 528, 529, 883 N.Y.S.2d 256; Totten v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 653, 654, 871 N.Y.S.2d 179; Strange v. Colgate Design Corp., 6 A.D.3d 422, 774 N.Y.S.2d 344). We agree with the Supreme Court that the deposition transcripts submitted by the defendant in support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ADS Plus Adver., Inc. v. Ault
... ... Ault further maintains that no evidence exists to warrant piercing PAR's corporate veil and holding Robert Ault personally liable on its contract with Ads Plus. ( Id. at 79). Ads Plus opposes the ... Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). The party seeking to avoid summary ... ...
-
Clark v. CF-Broadway Knolls, L.P.
... ... 35 N.Y.S.3d 686 [2d Dept 2016]; see also Palka v ... Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 611 ... N.Y.S.2d 817 11994]; Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H ... Ziatyk, 95 A.D.3d 929, 943 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2d Dept 2012]; ... Flores v BAJ Holding Corp., 94 A.D.3d 945, 942 ... N.Y.S.2d 202 [2d Dept 2012]; Medina v La Fiura ... ...
-
Kinzelberg v. St. Catherine of Siena Med. Ctr.
...800, 971 N.Y.S.2d 209 [2d Dept 2013]; Denardo v Ziatyk, 95 A.D.3d 929, 943 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2d Dept 2012]; Flores v BAJ Holding Corp., 94 A.D.3d 945, 942 N.Y.S.2d 202 [2d Dept 2012]; Medina v La Fiura Dev. Corp., 69 A.D.3d 686, 895 N.Y.S.2d 98 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Gordon v American Museum ......
-
Dhu v.
...of it ( see Cruz v. Rampersad, 110 A.D.3d 669, 972 N.Y.S.2d 302;Denardo v. Ziatyk, 95 A.D.3d 929, 943 N.Y.S.2d 591;Flores v. BAJ Holding Corp., 94 A.D.3d 945, 942 N.Y.S.2d 202;Cantwell v. Fox Hill Community Assn., Inc., 87 A.D.3d 1106, 930 N.Y.S.2d 459;Crosthwaite v. Acadia Realty Trust, 62......