Prusak v. New York City Hous. Auth., 43 A.D.3d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Prusak v. New York City Hous. Auth., 43 A.D.3d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Perez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 75 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1022 Burden of proof for summary judgment in slip and fall cases5 citing casesIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered…opening of page *1022 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Perez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 75 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023 [2007]; Gloria v MGM Emerald Enters., 298 AD2d 355, 356 [2002]).
  • Granillo v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2007]; see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp.
  • Melnikov v. 249 Brighton Corp., 72 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2007]; see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp.
  • Pinto v. Metro. Opera, 61 A.D.3d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023 [2007]; Gullo-Georgio v Dunkin’ Donuts Inc., 38 AD3d 836, 836-837 [2007]).
  • Aguirre v. Paul, 54 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2007]; see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp.
At page 1023 Granting summary judgment on motion to dismiss1 citing caseparty plaintiff satisfied this burden (see Calo v Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488 [2007]; Nisimov v Ocean Props., LLC, 10 AD3d 640 [2004]). In opposition, the…opening of page *1023 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Frazier v. City of New York, 47 A.D.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    Auth., 43 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2007]; Calo v Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488, 488-489 [2007]; Nisimov v Ocean Props., LLC, 10 AD3d 640, 640-641 [2004]; Stancarone v Waldbaums Inc., 275 AD2d 771, 772 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andrej Prusak
v.
New York City Housing Authority, and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Xaren Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 18, 2007.
Published opinion
43 A.D.3d 1022
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered April 7, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, in which the third-party defendant joined, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

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 Rodriguez v White Plains Pub. Schools, 35 AD3d 704 [2006]; Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]), Here, the defendant third-[*1023]party plaintiff satisfied this burden (see Calo v Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488 [2007]; Nisimov v Ocean Props., LLC, 10 AD3d 640 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Muniz v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 628 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.