Bennett v. Weber Job Lot Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett v. Weber Job Lot Corp.

93 A.D.3d 684, 939 N.Y.S.2d 874

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 A.D.3d 684 (Bennett v. Weber Job Lot Corp.) 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

Bennett v. Weber Job Lot Corp., 93 A.D.3d 684, 939 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated February 23, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant $2.00 Only Stores, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property (see Ellers v Horwitz Family Ltd. Partnership, 36 AD3d 849 [2007]; Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725 [2001]; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). Here, the defendant $2.00 Only Stores, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), established, prima facie, that, as a tenant of a building owned by the plaintiffs employer, a nonparty to this action, it used the interior staircase where the accident occurred along with the landlord and had no duty to maintain it (see Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725 [2001]; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant made special use of the staircase (see Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725 [2001]; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Balkin, J.E, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated February 23, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant $2.00 Only Stores, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property (see Ellers v Horwitz Family Ltd. Partnership, 36 AD3d 849 [2007]; Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725 [2001]; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). Here, the defendant $2.00 Only Stores, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), established, prima facie, that, as a tenant of a building owned by the plaintiffs employer, a nonparty to this action, it used the interior staircase where the accident occurred along with the landlord and had no duty to maintain it (see Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725 [2001]; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant made special use of the staircase (see Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725 [2001]; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Balkin, J.E, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 684, 939 N.Y.S.2d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-weber-job-lot-corp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack