Barkow v. New York Downtown Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barkow v. New York Downtown Hospital

260 A.D.2d 334, 687 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3598

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

DecidedApril 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 334 (Barkow v. New York Downtown Hospital) 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

Barkow v. New York Downtown Hospital, 260 A.D.2d 334, 687 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Raskin & Kremins, Esqs., Bruce J. Raskin, Michael F. Kremins, Raskin & Rappoport, P. C., Lester Raskin, and the Estate of Lewis J. Rappoport by his Executrix Christine Rappoport appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated January 27, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Daror Associates, United Equities Company, Braus Management, Inc., Moses Marx, and Leo Weiner which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellants’ cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the moving defendants were, collectively, out-of-possession landlords, and may not be cast in liability under the circumstances of his case, for the plaintiff’s fall over a “bump” in the carpeting in the appellants’ law office (see, Ortiz v. RVC Realty Co., 253 AD2d 802; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Raskin & Kremins, Esqs., Bruce J. Raskin, Michael F. Kremins, Raskin & Rappoport, P. C., Lester Raskin, and the Estate of Lewis J. Rappoport by his Executrix Christine Rappoport appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated January 27, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Daror Associates, United Equities Company, Braus Management, Inc., Moses Marx, and Leo Weiner which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellants’ cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the moving defendants were, collectively, out-of-possession landlords, and may not be cast in liability under the circumstances of his case, for the plaintiff’s fall over a “bump” in the carpeting in the appellants’ law office (see, Ortiz v. RVC Realty Co., 253 AD2d 802; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 334, 687 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barkow-v-new-york-downtown-hospital-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack