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.
Millet LEWIS, appellant, v. GUY PRATT, INC., et al., respondents (and a third-party action).
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, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated May 18, 1998, as granted those branches of the defendants' respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he stepped into a hole in his driveway and fell. He commenced this action against the contractor and subcontractor that replaced the driveway apron and sidewalk adjoining his property as part of a construction project for the municipality. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they neither created nor had notice of the defective condition (see generally, Raimo v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 530, 672 N.Y.S.2d 115; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590, 641 N.Y.S.2d 130). We conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to the motions was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendants' liability. Mere proof that the defendants were involved in the construction project prior to the date of the plaintiff's accident was insufficient (see, Perrone v. Waldbaum, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 517, 675 N.Y.S.2d 294; Raimo v. Brown, supra).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: August 02, 1999
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)