268 A.D.2d 504 (2000)

701 N.Y.S.2d 665

GERTRUDE HECHT, Respondent, v. TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, Defendant, and MURIEL C. DOLCE et al., Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided January 24, 2000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants is dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendants Muriel C. Dolce, Donn C. Dolce, and James Dolce (hereinafter the Dolce defendants) submitted proof in admissible form by a licensed land surveyor that the area where the plaintiff fell was within an easement granted by them to the defendant Town of New Castle (see, Village of Ellenville v Searles, 235 A.D.2d 693). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the location of the plaintiff's alleged fall.

The plaintiff's opposition to the cross motion was also insufficient to establish that the Dolce defendants retained control over the premises or were contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Berado v City of Mount Vernon, 262 A.D.2d 513).


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases