Del Rosario v. 114 Fifth Avenue Associates

266 A.D.2d 162, 699 N.Y.S.2d 19
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 30, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 162 (Del Rosario v. 114 Fifth Avenue Associates) 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
Del Rosario v. 114 Fifth Avenue Associates, 266 A.D.2d 162, 699 N.Y.S.2d 19 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered October 20, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ and third-party defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend his bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[163]*163Plaintiff, a janitor employed by third-party defendant commercial tenant in a building owned and managed by defendants, alleges that while mopping a washroom floor, he slipped and fell on water that had leaked from a toilet. The action was properly dismissed on the ground that the leaky toilet did not constitute a substantial structural defect for which the out-of-possession landlord and managing agent were responsible under the lease. An out-of-possession landlord with a general right of reentry is not liable for general maintenance defects (Raynor v 666 Fifth Ave. Ltd. Partnership, 232 AD2d 226). Plaintiff’s request to amend his bill of particulars three years after commencement of the action, and five months after he filed a note of issue, so as to allege various statutory violations all based on the theory that his employer was running a factory or mercantile establishment, was properly rejected as untimely and prejudicial (see, Plung v Cohen, 250 AD2d 430, 431) and, in any event, as without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Padilla v. Hope W. 118th Hous. Co., Inc.
165 N.Y.S.3d 278 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Siegfried v. West 63 Empire Associates, LLC
2016 NY Slip Op 8163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Scott v. Westmore Fuel Co.
96 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Diaz v. Ford Motor Co.
29 A.D.3d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Reilly v. Newireen Associates
303 A.D.2d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Baten v. Wehuda
281 A.D.2d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 162, 699 N.Y.S.2d 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/del-rosario-v-114-fifth-avenue-associates-nyappdiv-1999.