Centeno v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Centeno v. City of New York

204 A.D.2d 508, 614 N.Y.S.2d 215

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 508 (Centeno v. City of New York) 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

Centeno v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 508, 614 N.Y.S.2d 215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Dorfman & Associates and Supreme Furniture, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated June 15, 1992, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Given the nature of the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries and the vague and incomplete deposition testimony concerning the performance of certain work at the premises abutting the sidewalk, there are triable issues of fact regarding whether the appellants were responsible for causing or creating the defect (see, Finegold v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 202 AD2d 469). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, 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, etc., the defendants Dorfman & Associates and Supreme Furniture, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated June 15, 1992, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Given the nature of the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries and the vague and incomplete deposition testimony concerning the performance of certain work at the premises abutting the sidewalk, there are triable issues of fact regarding whether the appellants were responsible for causing or creating the defect (see, Finegold v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 202 AD2d 469). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 508, 614 N.Y.S.2d 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centeno-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack