Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rajat VERMA, etc., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered June 11, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Queens Borough Public Library, and that branch of cross motion of the defendant City of New York, which were for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The infant plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an outdoor staircase of a branch of the defendant Queens Borough Public Library while he was exiting the building. At the time of the accident, the staircase was wet due to an earlier rainstorm.
On their motions, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the accident did not occur as a result of a dangerous or defective condition on the staircase, and that, in any event, they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous or defective condition on the staircase (see Morgan v. City of New York, 59 A.D.3d 412, 872 N.Y.S.2d 543; Richardson v. Campanelli, 297 A.D.2d 794, 748 N.Y.S.2d 31; Sadowsky v. 2175 Wantagh Ave. Corp., 281 A.D.2d 407, 721 N.Y.S.2d 665; King v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 354, 698 N.Y.S.2d 328).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gentles v. New York City Tr. Auth., 275 A.D.2d 388, 389, 712 N.Y.S.2d 875). The findings of the plaintiff's expert were conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Palermo v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 20 A.D.3d 516, 799 N.Y.S.2d 248; Rodriguez v. Kimco Centereach 605, 298 A.D.2d 571, 749 N.Y.S.2d 543).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 19, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)