Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC

111 N.E.3d 322, 86 N.Y.S.3d 428, 32 N.Y.3d 1010
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors·Decided October 16, 2018·No. No. 144 SSM 19·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

***1011On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11 ), order affirmed, with costs. To the extent that a violation of standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) constitutes evidence of negligence (see Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co. , 67 N.Y.2d 328, 502 N.Y.S.2d 696, 493 N.E.2d 920 [1986] ; Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52, 436 N.E.2d 502 [1982] ), plaintiffs' reliance on those standards was proper. However, plaintiffs nevertheless failed to raise a triable question of fact as to whether defendants had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Wilson and Feinman concur. Judge Garcia took no part.

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

Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC, 111 N.E.3d 322, 86 N.Y.S.3d 428, 32 N.Y.3d 1010 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2018).

111 N.E.3d 322 (Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blake v. Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC
32 N.Y.3d 1010 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)