Hyperlawhypertext legal database Weinstein v. Seawane Golf & Country Club, Inc. 153 A.D.3d 582

← Cases

Weinstein v. Seawane Golf & Country Club, Inc.

153 A.D.3d 582 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2017-08-02 English

Judges Rivera, J.R, Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 582
Barbara Weinstein et al., Appellants, v Seawane Golf and Country Club, Inc., et al., Respondents.
[59 NYS3d 438]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated July 5, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the evening of July 5, 2014, the plaintiff Barbara Weinstein (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was at premises owned and operated by the defendants Seawane Golf and Country Club, Inc., and The Seawane Club (hereinafter together the club). The defendant Donald F. Mollitor, who was the general manager of the club, was standing next to a table with his back to the injured plaintiff. As she approached the table, he allegedly backed up and bumped into her, causing her to fall and sustain personal injuries. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced the instant action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that Mollitor was not negligent in

p. 583
the happening of the accident and that the defendants did not create a dangerous or defective condition in the placement of the table (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]; see also Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib., 125 AD3d 768 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cases cited