← Cases

Gifford v. Commerce Bank

92 A.D.3d 539 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2012-02-16 English

Contents

Majority

p. 539
Longina Gifford, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Markoski, Deceased, Respondent, v Commerce Bank et al., Appellants.
[938 NYS2d 436]

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should have been granted because they demonstrated that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and plaintiffs decedent’s deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the cleaning contractor caused or created the condition. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.