Andino v. NSPD Associates., LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andino v. NSPD Associates., LLC

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 2011·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 414 (Andino v. NSPD Associates., LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related