Charles Spinner v. 1725 York Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charles Spinner v. 1725 York Owners Corp.

56 A.D.2d 324, 869 N.Y.S.2d 12

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 324 (Charles Spinner v. 1725 York Owners 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

Charles Spinner v. 1725 York Owners Corp., 56 A.D.2d 324, 869 N.Y.S.2d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 22, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence that rain had been falling for an hour and a half before plaintiff slipped and fell and that persons entering the building were carrying, and sometimes closing, umbrellas in view of the doormen for at least 40 minutes raises a triable issue whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerously wet and slippery condition in the lobby of their building (see Fortgang v Chase Manhattan Bank, 23 NY2d 895 [1969]; Hewett v Conway Stores, 266 AD2d 137 [1999]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31150(U).]

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 22, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence that rain had been falling for an hour and a half before plaintiff slipped and fell and that persons entering the building were carrying, and sometimes closing, umbrellas in view of the doormen for at least 40 minutes raises a triable issue whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerously wet and slippery condition in the lobby of their building (see Fortgang v Chase Manhattan Bank, 23 NY2d 895 [1969]; Hewett v Conway Stores, 266 AD2d 137 [1999]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31150(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 324, 869 N.Y.S.2d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-spinner-v-1725-york-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack