Brown v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Riverbay Corp.

262 A.D.2d 173, 690 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 173 (Brown v. Riverbay 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

Brown v. Riverbay Corp., 262 A.D.2d 173, 690 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered February 4, 1999, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate building security, denied defendant building owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiffs’ deposition testimony unequivocally demonstrates that the lobby door lock was working at the time of the incident. Indeed, on the basis of the deposition testimony, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the lobby door lock had failed at the time of the alleged incident (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered February 4, 1999, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate building security, denied defendant building owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiffs’ deposition testimony unequivocally demonstrates that the lobby door lock was working at the time of the incident. Indeed, on the basis of the deposition testimony, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the lobby door lock had failed at the time of the alleged incident (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 173, 690 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack