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.
Phoebe SCHAFRAN, Appellant, v. PECONIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. (Action No.1).
Phoebe Schafran, Appellant, v. Marvin Simms, Respondent. (Action No.2).
In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered January 19, 2001, which, upon the granting of the motion of Marvin Simms, the defendant in Action No. 2, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 4401, and upon a jury verdict in favor of Peconic Management Corporation, the defendant in Action No. 1, dismissed the complaints.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate either that the defendant created the dangerous or defective condition that caused the incident, or that he had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774; Dima v. Breslin Realty, 240 A.D.2d 359, 360, 658 N.Y.S.2d 115). “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, supra, at 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774; see Negri v. Stop & Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 626, 491 N.Y.S.2d 151, 480 N.E.2d 740).
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant Marvin Simms, the owner of the cooperative unit where the accident occurred. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Simms either created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Simms's motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
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: April 08, 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)