Algood v. 2160-2164 Caton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Algood v. 2160-2164 Caton

4 A.D.3d 442, 772 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1705

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 442 (Algood v. 2160-2164 Caton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Algood v. 2160-2164 Caton, 4 A.D.3d 442, 772 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 2160-2164 Catón, LLC, and Hager Management Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated October 9, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for leave to serve and file a supplemental bill of particulars and granted the cross motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries and his father, the plaintiffs’ decedent, sustained fatal injuries in a gas explosion which occurred in the apartment of the plaintiffs’ decedent in a building owned and managed by the defendants 2160-2164 Catón, LLC, and Hager Management Corp. (hereinafter the landlords).

Brooklyn Union Gas established its entitlement to summary judgment by furnishing evidence that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition (see Famularo v Havasi, 221 AD2d 587 [1995]) and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue. However, the testimony of the landlords’ employees at their examinations [443]*443before trial indicated that the landlords had notice of a gas leak, and established that there are issues of fact as to whether their response was timely and adequate. The injured plaintiff’s conduct in attempting to fix the leak himself and then igniting a match to light his cigarette is relevant on the issue of comparative negligence.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.E, Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 2160-2164 Catón, LLC, and Hager Management Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated October 9, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for leave to serve and file a supplemental bill of particulars and granted the cross motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries and his father, the plaintiffs’ decedent, sustained fatal injuries in a gas explosion which occurred in the apartment of the plaintiffs’ decedent in a building owned and managed by the defendants 2160-2164 Catón, LLC, and Hager Management Corp. (hereinafter the landlords).

Brooklyn Union Gas established its entitlement to summary judgment by furnishing evidence that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition (see Famularo v Havasi, 221 AD2d 587 [1995]) and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that issue. However, the testimony of the landlords’ employees at their examinations [443]*443before trial indicated that the landlords had notice of a gas leak, and established that there are issues of fact as to whether their response was timely and adequate. The injured plaintiff’s conduct in attempting to fix the leak himself and then igniting a match to light his cigarette is relevant on the issue of comparative negligence.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.E, Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 442, 772 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/algood-v-2160-2164-caton-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack