Good opp not always required

Rely on this and you are a fool, but be aware.

Collins v 5840 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 00172 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Martinez v Khaimov, 74 AD3d 1031Rivera v YMCA of Greater N.Y., 37 AD3d 579), the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Edwards v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 721Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409). The conflicting evidence submitted by the defendants concerning the facts surrounding the accident raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants had notice of the alleged hazardous condition (see generally Tunison v D.J. Stapleton, Inc., 43 AD3d 910Lawson v Rutland Nursing Home, Inc., 65 AD3d 572Kolivas v Kirchoff, 14 AD3d 493). Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s