Legal Opinion
Andrini v. Navarra
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 11, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*576In order to prevail on their motion for summary judgment in this action involving a fall upon an allegedly defective stairway, the defendants were “ ‘required to establish as a matter of law that they maintained the property in question in a reasonably safe condition and that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition existing thereon nor had actual or constructive notice thereof ” (see Mokszki v Pratt, 13 AD3d 709, 710 [2004], quoting Richardson v Rotterdam Sq. Mall, 289 AD2d 679, 679 [2001]; Hyman v Queens County Bancorp, 307 AD2d 984, 986 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 743 [2004]). To…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Gordon v. American Museum of Natural HistoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Richardson v. Rotterdam Square MallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Mokszki v. PrattAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gleason v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Dunleavy v. TuttleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Spallina v. St. Camillus ChurchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Matter of Penthouse 2019, Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022