City of New York v. Drizin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Drizin

295 A.D.2d 552, 744 N.Y.S.2d 695

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 552 (City of New York v. Drizin) 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

City of New York v. Drizin, 295 A.D.2d 552, 744 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In nine related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendants in action Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated April 10, 2001, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in those actions, and the plaintiffs in action No. 2 cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their complaint on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the plaintiffs in action No. 2 for partial summary judgment on their complaint on the issue of liability, as there are material issues of fact regarding, inter alia, whether the inoperable standpipe system proximately caused their property damage (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

The Supreme Court also properly denied the cross motion of the defendants in action Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 for summary judgment, as there is a material issue of fact as to whether the arsonist’s conduct was forseeable (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v City of Albany, 247 AD2d 815). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In nine related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendants in action Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated April 10, 2001, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in those actions, and the plaintiffs in action No. 2 cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their complaint on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the plaintiffs in action No. 2 for partial summary judgment on their complaint on the issue of liability, as there are material issues of fact regarding, inter alia, whether the inoperable standpipe system proximately caused their property damage (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

The Supreme Court also properly denied the cross motion of the defendants in action Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 for summary judgment, as there is a material issue of fact as to whether the arsonist’s conduct was forseeable (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v City of Albany, 247 AD2d 815). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 552, 744 N.Y.S.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-drizin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack