Powell v. Pasqualino
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Steward v. 221 W. 26th St. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- McDonald v. Fitzgerald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Gauzza v. GBR Two Crosfield Avenue Ltd. Liability Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- DeMilo v. Weinberg Bros., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Hoffman v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Hoffman v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Houck v. Simoes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- McMahon v. Gold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Perez v. Downstate Internal Medicine Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Hodges v. Sidial (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Lofstad v. S & R Fisheries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated May 30, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when part of an exterior step abutting the den area of the defendants’ home shattered as he walked over it, causing him to fall. The subject step consisted of slate tiles over a brick base. Prior to the accident, the slate tiles were neither broken nor cracked in any way, and the plaintiff had used the step several times—including on the day of the accident—without incident.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Lal v Ching Po Ng, 33 AD3d 668 [2006]; Curiale v Sharrotts Woods, Inc., 9 AD3d 473, 475 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs expert failed to show, inter alia, that the step had been negligently constructed or maintained (see Pena v Women’s Outreach Network, Inc., 35 AD3d 104, 110-111 [2006]; Lal v Ching Po Ng, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.