Alicea v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alicea v. City of New York

188 A.D.2d 631, 591 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14604

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 631 (Alicea v. City of New York) 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

Alicea v. City of New York, 188 A.D.2d 631, 591 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 19, 1990, which granted the motion of the defendant Waldbaum’s Incorporated for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The area where plaintiff was injured is remote from the defendant Waldbaum’s store, is not part of the property leased by the defendant Waldbaum’s, and is a public sidewalk outside of the perimeter fence of the common parking area shared by several businesses including the defendant Waldbaum’s. Consequently, the defendant Waldbaum’s owed no duty to the plaintiff, and the action against it was properly dismissed (cf., Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; Chadis v Grand Union Co., 158 AD2d 443). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 19, 1990, which granted the motion of the defendant Waldbaum’s Incorporated for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The area where plaintiff was injured is remote from the defendant Waldbaum’s store, is not part of the property leased by the defendant Waldbaum’s, and is a public sidewalk outside of the perimeter fence of the common parking area shared by several businesses including the defendant Waldbaum’s. Consequently, the defendant Waldbaum’s owed no duty to the plaintiff, and the action against it was properly dismissed (cf., Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; Chadis v Grand Union Co., 158 AD2d 443). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 631, 591 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alicea-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack