Barbitsch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barbitsch v. City of New York

241 A.D.2d 472, 661 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 14, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 2, 1996, as, upon renewal, granted the motion of the defendant Larchwood Construction for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint and all cross claims are reinstated insofar as asserted against Larchwood Construction.

We find that the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiffs, including an affidavit of a licensed professional engineer, were sufficient to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether Larchwood Construction’s preparation of tree pits along Central Avenue between 68th Street and 67th Place in Glendale, Queens, contributed to the creation of the defective condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiffs accident (see, e.g., Zayas v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 226 AD2d 713; see also, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 2, 1996, as, upon renewal, granted the motion of the defendant Larchwood Construction for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint and all cross claims are reinstated insofar as asserted against Larchwood Construction.

We find that the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiffs, including an affidavit of a licensed professional engineer, were sufficient to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether Larchwood Construction’s preparation of tree pits along Central Avenue between 68th Street and 67th Place in Glendale, Queens, contributed to the creation of the defective condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiffs accident (see, e.g., Zayas v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 226 AD2d 713; see also, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Barbitsch v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 472, 661 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

241 A.D.2d 472 (Barbitsch v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related