Legal Opinion
Pryzywalny v. New York City Transit Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 5, 2010PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
A defendant owner or entity who is responsible for maintaining a premises who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case involving the property has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Arzola v Boston Props. Ltd. Partnership, 63 AD3d 655 *599[2009]; see also Bruk v Razag, Inc., 60 AD3d 715 [2009]). To provide constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a…
2Cases cited5 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
- Birnbaum v. New York Racing Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Arzola v. Boston Properties Limited PartnershipAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Bruk v. Razag, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3Cited by70 opinions
- Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Management Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Slikas v. Cyclone Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Amendola v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Levine v. Amverserve Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.