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

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 472 (Barbitsch 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 472, 661 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbitsch-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack