DeStefano v. Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeStefano v. Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp.

237 A.D.2d 245, 655 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2191

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 245 (DeStefano v. Gutterman-Warheit Realty 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

DeStefano v. Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp., 237 A.D.2d 245, 655 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp. and Gutterman’s, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered March 6, 1996, as denied the motion of the defendant Gutterman’s, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp. is dismissed, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the order entered March 6, 1996; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Gutterman’s, Inc.; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs-respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellants. .

We agree that there are factual issues as to the origin of the ice patch which allegedly caused Peter DeStefano’s fall, and whether reasonable care was exercised in the maintenance of the premises in question (see, Fisher v Big V. Supermarkets, 221 AD2d 499; Marcellus v Littauer Hosp. Assn., 145 AD2d 680, 681-682; cf., Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972; Grillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 214 AD2d 648). Accordingly, the motion of the defendant Gutterman’s, Inc., was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp. and Gutterman’s, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered March 6, 1996, as denied the motion of the defendant Gutterman’s, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp. is dismissed, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the order entered March 6, 1996; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Gutterman’s, Inc.; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs-respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellants. .

We agree that there are factual issues as to the origin of the ice patch which allegedly caused Peter DeStefano’s fall, and whether reasonable care was exercised in the maintenance of the premises in question (see, Fisher v Big V. Supermarkets, 221 AD2d 499; Marcellus v Littauer Hosp. Assn., 145 AD2d 680, 681-682; cf., Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972; Grillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 214 AD2d 648). Accordingly, the motion of the defendant Gutterman’s, Inc., was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 245, 655 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/destefano-v-gutterman-warheit-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack