Birthwright v. Mid-City Security, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Birthwright v. Mid-City Security, Inc.

268 A.D.2d 402, 701 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 402 (Birthwright v. Mid-City Security, Inc.) 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

Birthwright v. Mid-City Security, Inc., 268 A.D.2d 402, 701 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 9, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Lefrak Organization, Inc., Samuel J. Lefrak, individually, Richard Lefrak, individually, Samuel Lefrak and Ethel Lefrak, as Trustees f/b/o Denise Lefrak Bandier—7.5%, Samuel J. Lefrak and Ethel Lefrak, as Trustees f/b/o Jacqueline Sarah Lefrak, and Samuel J. Lefrak and Ethel Lefrak, as Trustees f/b/o Francine Lefrak, d/b/a Federal Leasing Company, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

There is no evidence that the respondents created the puddle of water on which the plaintiff Adrienne Birthwright allegedly slipped or that they had actual or constructive notice of it. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Birthwright v Mid-City Sec., 268 AD2d 401 [decided herewith]). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 9, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Lefrak Organization, Inc., Samuel J. Lefrak, individually, Richard Lefrak, individually, Samuel Lefrak and Ethel Lefrak, as Trustees f/b/o Denise Lefrak Bandier—7.5%, Samuel J. Lefrak and Ethel Lefrak, as Trustees f/b/o Jacqueline Sarah Lefrak, and Samuel J. Lefrak and Ethel Lefrak, as Trustees f/b/o Francine Lefrak, d/b/a Federal Leasing Company, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

There is no evidence that the respondents created the puddle of water on which the plaintiff Adrienne Birthwright allegedly slipped or that they had actual or constructive notice of it. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Birthwright v Mid-City Sec., 268 AD2d 401 [decided herewith]). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 402, 701 N.Y.S.2d 627, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birthwright-v-mid-city-security-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack