Blum v. Grunberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blum v. Grunberg

270 A.D.2d 220, 704 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2534

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 220 (Blum v. Grunberg) 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

Blum v. Grunberg, 270 A.D.2d 220, 704 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 12, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[221]*221Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

A landowner owes a duty “to exercise reasonable care in maintaining his property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiffs presence on the property” (Kurshals v Connetquot Cent. School Dist., 227 AD2d 593; see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233; Laluna v DGM Partners, 234 AD2d 519; Watson v Hillside Hous. Corp., 232 AD2d 252). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court erred in finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the defendants exercised reasonable care in maintaining their property (cf., Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated March 12, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[221]*221Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

A landowner owes a duty “to exercise reasonable care in maintaining his property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiffs presence on the property” (Kurshals v Connetquot Cent. School Dist., 227 AD2d 593; see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233; Laluna v DGM Partners, 234 AD2d 519; Watson v Hillside Hous. Corp., 232 AD2d 252). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court erred in finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the defendants exercised reasonable care in maintaining their property (cf., Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 220, 704 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blum-v-grunberg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack