Brown v. 2732 Bainbridge Assoc., LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. 2732 Bainbridge Assoc., LLC

89 A.D.3d 410, 931 N.Y.2d 854

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 410 (Brown v. 2732 Bainbridge Assoc., LLC) 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

Brown v. 2732 Bainbridge Assoc., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 410, 931 N.Y.2d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that it properly maintained the water heating system in its building and that it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injury, or that the injury resulted from a normal fluctuation in the water temperature in the bathtub (see Boderick v R.Y. Mgt. Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 144, 147 [2009]). Defendant submitted no evidence to support its contention that plaintiff was injured as a result of a normal fluctuation in the water temperature. Its superintendent testified that plaintiffs mother had complained to him about the unregulated water temperature in the bathroom and that before the date of plaintiffs injury he had repaired the hot water seals in the shower and the seals and gaskets in the bathtub faucet. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that it properly maintained the water heating system in its building and that it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injury, or that the injury resulted from a normal fluctuation in the water temperature in the bathtub (see Boderick v R.Y. Mgt. Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 144, 147 [2009]). Defendant submitted no evidence to support its contention that plaintiff was injured as a result of a normal fluctuation in the water temperature. Its superintendent testified that plaintiffs mother had complained to him about the unregulated water temperature in the bathroom and that before the date of plaintiffs injury he had repaired the hot water seals in the shower and the seals and gaskets in the bathtub faucet. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 410, 931 N.Y.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-2732-bainbridge-assoc-llc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack