Carter v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carter v. New York City Housing Authority

260 A.D.2d 528, 688 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4093

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 20, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when a door in her apartment shut on her hand. The defendant New York City Housing Authority, the owner of the building, was granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

The court properly determined that the door at issue was not an inherently dangerous instrument simply because it lacked a door stop (see, Tjepkema v Rochdale Meat Mkt., 238 AD2d 333; Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD2d 780, affd 55 NY2d 966; White v Board of Educ., 249 App Div 520, 521, mod on other grounds 250 App Div 777).

[529] The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 20, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when a door in her apartment shut on her hand. The defendant New York City Housing Authority, the owner of the building, was granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

The court properly determined that the door at issue was not an inherently dangerous instrument simply because it lacked a door stop (see, Tjepkema v Rochdale Meat Mkt., 238 AD2d 333; Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD2d 780, affd 55 NY2d 966; White v Board of Educ., 249 App Div 520, 521, mod on other grounds 250 App Div 777).

[529] The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Carter v. New York City Housing Authority, 260 A.D.2d 528, 688 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

260 A.D.2d 528 (Carter v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related