Arabian v. Benenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arabian v. Benenson

284 A.D.2d 422, 726 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6662

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

DecidedJune 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 422 (Arabian v. Benenson) 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

Arabian v. Benenson, 284 A.D.2d 422, 726 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 1, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. As the owners of the Roosevelt Field Shopping Mall where the subject accident allegedly occurred, the defendants had a nondelegable duty “to provide members of the general public with a reasonably safe premises, including a safe means of ingress and egress” (Thomassen v J&K Diner, 152 AD2d 421, 424; see, Richardson v Schwager Assocs., 249 AD2d 531, 532). Therefore, the defendants are vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the workers they hired who allegedly created a hazardous condition in a mall walkway (see, June v Zikakis Chevrolet, 199 AD2d 907, 909; Thomassen v J&K Diner, supra, at 424). That being so, the defendants did not establish a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 1, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. As the owners of the Roosevelt Field Shopping Mall where the subject accident allegedly occurred, the defendants had a nondelegable duty “to provide members of the general public with a reasonably safe premises, including a safe means of ingress and egress” (Thomassen v J&K Diner, 152 AD2d 421, 424; see, Richardson v Schwager Assocs., 249 AD2d 531, 532). Therefore, the defendants are vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the workers they hired who allegedly created a hazardous condition in a mall walkway (see, June v Zikakis Chevrolet, 199 AD2d 907, 909; Thomassen v J&K Diner, supra, at 424). That being so, the defendants did not establish a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 422, 726 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arabian-v-benenson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack