Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mashika Patterson v. Milford Realty

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 30, 2010

MASHIKA PATTERSON,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MILFORD REALTY, L.L.C., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Per curiam.

Patterson v Milford Realty, L.L.C.

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 30, 2010

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), dated June 2, 2009, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), dated June 2, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that it lacked notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff's fall (see Wise-Love v 60 Broad St. LLC,75 AD3d 487 [2010]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. Although plaintiff's cousin (a resident of the building in which the accident occurred) stated at her deposition that water accumulated on the floor in the building each time it rained and that the water would be tracked onto the interior stairs, this demonstrated, at most, that defendant had a general awareness that the floor became wet during inclement weather, which is insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition that caused plaintiff's injury (see Rodriguez v 520 Audubon Assoc., 71 AD3d 417 [2010]). Nor did plaintiff raise a triable issue regarding her allegation that the subject stairs were in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-375(h) (see Rodriguez, supra; compare Babich v R.G.T. Restaurant Corp., 75 AD3d 439 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: December 30, 2010

20101230

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.