Hudson motion in New York

2017When evaluated under the Central Hudson test, petitioners’ contention lacks merit (see Metromedia, Inc. v City of San Diego, 453 US 490, 498-499, 510-512 ; Suffolk Outdoor Adv.

2017When evaluated under the Central Hudson test, petitioners’ contention lacks merit (see Metromedia, Inc. v San Diego, 453 US 490, 498-499, 510-512 [1981]; Suffolk Outdoor Adv.

2013The Supreme Court also should not have granted that branch of Hudson’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. “ ‘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’ ” (Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598, 598 [2008], quoting Yioves v T.J.

2013The Supreme Court also should not have granted that branch of Hudson’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. “ ‘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’ ” (Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598, 598 [2008], quoting Yioves v T.J.

2013Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor (see Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 AD3d at 18 ; see also Grimaldi v 221 Arlington Realty, LLC, 107 AD3d 670, 670 [2013]; Lee v Second Ave.

2013Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor (see Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 AD3d at 18 ; see also Grimaldi v 221 Arlington Realty, LLC, 107 AD3d 670, 670 [2013]; Lee v Second Ave.

2013Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor (see Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 AD3d at 18 ; see also Grimaldi v 221 Arlington Realty, LLC, 107 AD3d 670, 670 [2013]; Lee v Second Ave.

2013Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor (see Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 AD3d at 18 ; see also Grimaldi v 221 Arlington Realty, LLC, 107 AD3d 670, 670 [2013]; Lee v Second Ave.

2013Maxx, Inc., 29 AD3d 572, 572 [2006]).

2013Maxx, Inc., 29 AD3d 572, 572 [2006]).

2013An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty (see Rivera v Nelson Realty, LLC, 7 NY3d 530, 534 [2006]; Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 AD3d 10, 18 [2011]).

2013An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty (see Rivera v Nelson Realty, LLC, 7 NY3d 530, 534 [2006]; Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 AD3d 10, 18 [2011]).

2017Co. v Hulse, 43 NY2d 483, 488-489 ).

2017Co. v Hulse, 43 NY2d 483, 488-489 [1977]).

2026However, a court may entertain a party’s motion for leave to reargue beyond the 30- day limit when there is a pending appeal and the appeal is unperfected (Kugel v Reynolds, 228 AD3d 743 , 746–47 [2d Dept 2024]; see also Profita v Diaz, 100 AD3d 481, 481 [1st Dept 2012] [holding that the trial court providently exercised its discretion to consider a motion for leave to reargue past the 30-day time limit]).

2024NO. 472 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024 claims is premature (see Valentine Tr. v Kernizan, 191 AD2d 159, 160-161 [1st Dept 1993] [denying summary judgment motion as premature when motion made at same time as motion for leave to amend, which was granted]).

2024The evidence established that Hudson neither owned, occupied, controlled, or made special use of the location where plaintiff was injured ( see Branch v County of Sullivan, 25 NY3d 1079, 1082 [2015]; Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y., 17 AD3d 252, 254 [1st Dept 2005]).

2024Legal Analysis and Conclusions A. 395 Hudson’s Motion for Leave to Amend As 395 Hudson’s request for leave to amend its pleadings is unopposed, that branch of 395 Hudson’s motion is granted. 2 B. 395 Hudson’s Motion for Summary Judgment “A motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined and th[at] requirement is strictly adhered to” (City of Rochester v Chiarella, 65 NY2d 92 , 101 [1985] [citations omitted]; see SHG Resources, LLC v SYTR Real Estate Holdings LLC, 201 AD3d 610, 611 [1st Dept 2022]).

2024The evidence established that Hudson neither owned, occupied, controlled, or made special use of the location where plaintiff was injured ( see Branch v County of Sullivan, 25 NY3d 1079, 1082 [2015]; Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y., 17 AD3d 252, 254 [1st Dept 2005]).

2023Hudson, whose property manager testified that he conducted daily inspections of the floor where construction was being performed, failed to make out a prima facie case that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the boards' misleveled edges ( see Bayo , 106 AD3d at 648; Rodriguez , 104 AD3d at 530).

2023Hudson, whose property manager testified that he conducted daily inspections of the floor where construction was being performed, failed to make out a prima facie case that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the boards' misleveled edges ( see Bayo , 106 AD3d at 648; Rodriguez , 104 AD3d at 530).

2015Collins v E-Magine, 291 AD2d 350, 351 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 605 [2002].

2015Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

2015Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

2010“What our decisions require is a ‘ “fit” between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends’ — a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable.” (Fox, 492 US at 480 [citation omitted].) 6 C.

2010As early as 1921, we said, in language we have repeatedly echoed since then: "Matters in themselves of seeming indifference or light trifles of the time and place of persons meeting may so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between defendant and the crime" ( Dixon, 231 NY at 116-117 [emphasis added]; see also, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629 [1975]; Breland, 83 NY2d at 294 ; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143 [2001]).

2010As early as 1921, we said, in language we have repeatedly echoed since then: "Matters in themselves of seeming indifference or light trifles of the time and place of persons meeting may so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between defendant and the crime" ( Dixon, 231 NY at 116-117 [emphasis added]; see also, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629 [1975]; Breland, 83 NY2d at 294 ; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143 [2001]).

2010As early as 1921, we said, in language we have repeatedly echoed since then: "Matters in themselves of seeming indifference or light trifles of the time and place of persons meeting may so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between defendant and the crime" ( Dixon, 231 NY at 116-117 [emphasis added]; see also, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629 [1975]; Breland, 83 NY2d at 294 ; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143 [2001]).

2010As early as 1921, we said, in language we have repeatedly echoed since then: "Matters in themselves of seeming indifference or light trifles of the time and place of persons meeting may so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between defendant and the crime" ( Dixon, 231 NY at 116-117 [emphasis added]; see also, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629 [1975]; Breland, 83 NY2d at 294 ; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143 [2001]).

2010As early as 1921, we said, in language we have repeatedly echoed since then: "Matters in themselves of seeming indifference or light trifles of the time and place of persons meeting may so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between defendant and the crime" ( Dixon, 231 NY at 116-117 [emphasis added]; see also, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629 [1975]; Breland, 83 NY2d at 294 ; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143 [2001]).

2010As early as 1921, we said, in language we have repeatedly echoed since then: "Matters in themselves of seeming indifference or light trifles of the time and place of persons meeting may so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between defendant and the crime" ( Dixon, 231 NY at 116-117 [emphasis added]; see also, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629 [1975]; Breland, 83 NY2d at 294 ; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143 [2001]).