Scoppettone v. Adj Holding Corporation
| Decision Date | 19 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-04326. |
| Parties | TAMMY SCOPPETTONE et al., Appellants, v. ADJ HOLDING CORPORATION et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Tammy Scoppettone (hereinafter the plaintiff) tripped and fell at the exterior doors (hereinafter the doors), just inside the lobby of premises at 243 Boyle Road in Selden (hereinafter the premises), allegedly sustaining severe injuries. The premises are owned by the defendant ADJ Holding Corporation (hereinafter ADJ). The wife of the defendant Charles Bleecher is the executive officer of ADJ, which leased the premises to the defendant Charles Bleecher, M.D., P.C. (hereinafter the PC), a professional corporation whose president is Bleecher.
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff, who worked for a subtenant of the PC at the premises, was attempting to exit the premises through the doors. The plaintiff alleged that she was caused to fall due to broken and/or crushed tiles directly abutting the doors inside the lobby. She did not dispute that, ordinarily, the tiled area was concealed by a rubber mat, which lay flush with the interior door jamb, but she asserted that the rubber mat only partially covered the tiled area at the time of the accident.
After the note of issue was filed, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that they lacked actual and/or constructive notice of any defective condition, and had not created the allegedly defective condition. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending that the defendants had constructive notice thereof. The Supreme Court granted the motion and we affirm.
"To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a slip 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" (Bradish v Tank Tech Corp., 216 AD2d 505, 506 [1995]). "On a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeEscobar v. Westland S. Shore Mall, L.P.
... ... Cove Prop.) LLC, 148 A.D.3d 1100, 50 N.Y.S.3d 520 [2d ... Dept 2017]; Scoppettone v. ADJ Holding Corp., 41 ... A.D.3d 693, 839 N.Y.S.2d 116 [2d Dept 2007]; Bradish v ... 884 N.Y.S.2d 866 [2d Dept 2009]; Makaron v. Luna Park ... Housing Corporation, 25 A.D.3d 770, 809 N.Y.S.2d 520 ... [2006]; Abramov v Miral Corp., 24 A.D.3d 397, 805 ... ...
-
Mejia v. Delgado
...inspection" (Curiale v. Sharrotts Woods, Inc., 9 A.D.3d 473, 475, 781 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2d Dept 2004]; see Scoppettone v. ADJ Holding Corp., 41 A.D.3d 693, 694, 839 N.Y.S.2d 116 [2d Dept 2007]; Lal v. Ching Po Ng, 33 A.D.3d 668, 823 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2d Dept 2006]). Here, Defendants demonstrated the......
-
Spindell v. Town of Hempstead
...78 A.D.3d at 909, 910 N.Y.S.2d 561; Applegate v. Long Is. Power Auth., 53 A.D.3d at 516, 862 N.Y.S.2d 86; Scoppettone v. ADJ Holding Corp., 41 A.D.3d 693, 694–695, 839 N.Y.S.2d 116; Lal v. Ching Po Ng, 33 A.D.3d at 668, 823 N.Y.S.2d 429; Curiale v. Sharrotts Woods, Inc., 9 A.D.3d at 475, 78......
-
Catalano v. Tanner
...( see Anderson, 96 A.D.3d at 1448, 946 N.Y.S.2d 739; Pommerenck, 79 A.D.3d at 1718, 914 N.Y.S.2d 826; Scoppettone v. ADJ Holding Corp., 41 A.D.3d 693, 695, 839 N.Y.S.2d 116), we conclude that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness of defendant's ins......