Collazo v. Concourse One Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collazo v. Concourse One Co.

6 A.D.3d 320, 775 N.Y.S.2d 142, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834

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

DecidedApril 27, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 320 (Collazo v. Concourse One Co.) 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

Collazo v. Concourse One Co., 6 A.D.3d 320, 775 N.Y.S.2d 142, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered May 15, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell on a stairway in defendant’s building, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the stairway in question was dangerously defective, raised by plaintiffs testimony and affidavit describing the step on which she tripped as “broken or rotted” with a “hole” “on the top” or “edge” about three inches in height and a foot long that was surrounded by “rust.” Contrary to defendant and its expert, the photographs identified by plaintiff at her deposition as a fair representation of the step at the time of the accident do not establish the lack of merit of plaintiffs case, but rather raise issues of fact. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered May 15, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell on a stairway in defendant’s building, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the stairway in question was dangerously defective, raised by plaintiffs testimony and affidavit describing the step on which she tripped as “broken or rotted” with a “hole” “on the top” or “edge” about three inches in height and a foot long that was surrounded by “rust.” Contrary to defendant and its expert, the photographs identified by plaintiff at her deposition as a fair representation of the step at the time of the accident do not establish the lack of merit of plaintiffs case, but rather raise issues of fact. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 320, 775 N.Y.S.2d 142, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collazo-v-concourse-one-co-nyappdiv-2004.