Caturano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caturano v. City of New York

224 A.D.2d 202, 637 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 962

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1995, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant-respondent’s cross claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment in this action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a sidewalk defect, including whether defendants-respondents, the abutting property owner and its managing agent, while engaged in a nearby demolition project employing heavy machinery and equipment damaged the sidewalk by traversing it with their machinery and equipment, left it strewn with debris, or otherwise created the unsafe conditions that caused plaintiff’s injuries (see, Forelli v Rugino, 139 AD2d 489). We note such facts are peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge and control and have yet to be fully probed in disclosure (see, Terranova v Emil, 20 NY2d 493, 497). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1995, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant-respondent’s cross claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment in this action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a sidewalk defect, including whether defendants-respondents, the abutting property owner and its managing agent, while engaged in a nearby demolition project employing heavy machinery and equipment damaged the sidewalk by traversing it with their machinery and equipment, left it strewn with debris, or otherwise created the unsafe conditions that caused plaintiff’s injuries (see, Forelli v Rugino, 139 AD2d 489). We note such facts are peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge and control and have yet to be fully probed in disclosure (see, Terranova v Emil, 20 NY2d 493, 497). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Caturano v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 202, 637 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 202 (Caturano v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related