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.
Addys PERALTA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Raphael HENRIQUEZ, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Raphael Henriquez and Aurora Henriquez appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated December 7, 2000, as, upon a jury verdict finding them 82% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Since the appellant Raphael Henriquez testified at trial that he permitted tenants and guests to park in the appellants' lot 24 hours per day, the appellants had a duty to provide adequate lighting in the lot at the time of the plaintiff's accident (see, Gallagher v. St. Raymond's Roman Catholic Church, 21 N.Y.2d 554, 289 N.Y.S.2d 401, 236 N.E.2d 632). Therefore, the plaintiff sufficiently established a prima facie case of negligence against the appellants for the trial court to submit to the jury (see, Gallagher v. St. Raymond's Roman Catholic Church, supra; Goldfarb v. Kzichevsky, 280 A.D.2d 583, 720 N.Y.S.2d 810; Miccoli v. Kotz, 278 A.D.2d 460, 717 N.Y.S.2d 661; Kurth v. Wallkill Assoc., 132 A.D.2d 529, 517 N.Y.S.2d 267).
Because the plaintiff's case was founded on the premise that the appellants created the dangerous condition that led to the accident, notice was not an element of her claim (see, Cook v. Rezende, 32 N.Y.2d 596, 599, 347 N.Y.S.2d 57, 300 N.E.2d 428; Septoff v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 242 A.D.2d 618, 662 N.Y.S.2d 549; Saia v. Misrahi, 129 A.D.2d 621, 514 N.Y.S.2d 256; Safran v. Man-Dell Stores, 106 A.D.2d 560, 483 N.Y.S.2d 370). Accordingly, the appellants were not entitled to a jury charge on the issue of notice (see, Safran v. Man-Dell Stores, supra).
The record does not establish the existence of substantial juror confusion occasioned by the trial court's instructions which would warrant a new trial (see, Mattei v. Figueroa, 262 A.D.2d 459, 692 N.Y.S.2d 119).
The appellants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 18, 2002
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)