Andino v. NSPD Associates., LLC

89 A.D.3d 414, 931 N.Y.2d 856

This text of 89 A.D.3d 414 (Andino v. NSPD Associates., LLC) 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
Andino v. NSPD Associates., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 414, 931 N.Y.2d 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Step-Mar made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition on the subject sidewalk (see Fernandez v 707, Inc., 85 AD3d 539, 540-541 [2011]). In opposition, Con Edison raised an issue of fact as to whether Step-Mar properly performed its contractual obligation to maintain the work site, which included the subject sidewalk (cf. id. at 541). The contract does not state, and Step-Mar’s supervisor did not testify at his deposition, that Step-Mar’s obligation is limited to safeguarding its own work, materials, or equipment. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Related

Fernandez v. 707, Inc.
85 A.D.3d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 414, 931 N.Y.2d 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andino-v-nspd-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2011.