Goldin v. Riker
| Decision Date | 05 June 2000 |
| Parties | DEBORAH GOLDIN et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>H. CHARLES RIKER, Defendant, and<BR>NEW LIFE MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant will not be liable for a dangerous or defective condition on its property unless it created the condition, or had actual or constructive notice of its existence and a reasonable time to remedy the defect (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, affd 64 NY2d 670). A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the lack of notice must establish, prima facie, the absence of notice (see, Beltran v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 456).
The appellant, New Life Management, Inc., failed to establish the absence of notice. The deposition testimony of its owner/president, that he had been aware of the subject pothole for at least two to three weeks before the accident, demonstrated that the appellant had actual notice of the defective condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hecht v. Saccoccio
...judgment dismissing the complaint based on the lack of notice must establish, prima facie, the absence of notice ( see Goldin v. Riker, 273 A.D.2d 197, 198, 709 N.Y.S.2d 119). [989 N.Y.S.2d 914] Here, the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that her decedent had neither actua......
-
Burniche v. Cb Richards Ellis, 3
...problems in the electrical closet where plaintiff received the electrical shock which resulted in her injuries (see, e.g., Goldin v Riker, 273 A.D.2d 197, 198). Consequently, on this record, it was defendant's affirmative duty to "identif[y] and resolv[e] problems", and its failure to do so......
-
Viceroy v. City of Yonkers, 01-02058
...time to remedy the defect (see, Brown-Phifer v. Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 A.D.2d 564, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 721; Goldin v. Riker, 273 A.D.2d 197). The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint at the close of his case-in-chief because there was insufficient evidence s......
- GARNCARZ v. GARNCARZ