Rodriguez v. Town of Islip
| Decision Date | 29 November 2011 |
| Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08742,933 N.Y.S.2d 601,89 A.D.3d 1077 |
| Parties | Norma RODRIGUEZ, plaintiff-respondent, v. TOWN OF ISLIP, et al., defendants-respondents,County of Suffolk, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREChristine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant County of Suffolk appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 17, 2010, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant County of Suffolk for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.
The defendant County of Suffolk established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have prior written notice of a defect on a sidewalk that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall ( see Suffolk County Charter § C8–2A; Regan v. Town of N. Hempstead, 66 A.D.3d 863, 864, 887 N.Y.S.2d 259; Koehler v. Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst, 42 A.D.3d 438, 839 N.Y.S.2d 539; Lysohir v. County of Suffolk, 10 A.D.3d 638, 639, 781 N.Y.S.2d 693). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Regan v. Town of N. Hempstead, 66 A.D.3d at 864, 887 N.Y.S.2d 259; Lysohir v. County of Suffolk, 10 A.D.3d at 639, 781 N.Y.S.2d 693). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the County's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dutka v. Odierno
...at 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104 ; Oliveri v. Village of Greenport, 93 A.D.3d 773, 940 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; Rodriguez v. Town of Islip, 89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.S.2d 601 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, a munic......
-
Reilly v. Garden City Union Free Sch. Dist.
...of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; [89 A.D.3d 1077] Elisa Dreier Reporting Corp. v. Global NAPs Networks, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 122, 921 N.Y.S.2d 329; Holster v. Cohen, 80 A.D.3d 565, 566, 914 N.......
-
Estate of Peretz v. Vill. of Great Neck Plaza
...Village of Great Neck Plaza § 185–39; Sola v. Village of Great Neck Plaza, 115 A.D.3d at 662, 981 N.Y.S.2d 545 ; Rodriguez v. Town of Islip, 89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.S.2d 601 ; Giffords v. Water Auth. of Great Neck N., 40 A.D.3d 695, 836 N.Y.S.2d 629 ), and that it did not create the alleged......
-
Simon v. Inc.
...93 N.Y.2d at 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104;Oliveri v. Village of Greenport, 93 A.D.3d 773, 940 N.Y.S.2d 675;Rodriguez v. Town of Islip, 89 A.D.3d 1077, 933 N.Y.S.2d 601). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant's actual or constructive noti......