Do Espirito Santo v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Do Espirito Santo v. City of New York

185 Misc. 2d 517, 716 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 398

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 185 Misc. 2d 517 (Do Espirito Santo v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Do Espirito Santo v. City of New York, 185 Misc. 2d 517, 716 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered June 14, 1999 reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The clerk is directed to [518]*518enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint as against it.

The hazard to which plaintiff attributes her fall and injury, an uneven and “uplift [ed]” exterior step on premises owned by defendant-appellant, is not alleged or shown to constitute a defect violative of any specific statutory safety provision (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). No basis is shown, therefore, to impose liability upon defendant, an out-of-possession owner which had relinquished control over the premises years before the occurrence of plaintiffs injury (supra; Gomez v Walton Realty Assocs., 258 AD2d 307).

Parness, P. J., McCooe and Gangel-Jacob, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered June 14, 1999 reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The clerk is directed to [518]*518enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint as against it.

The hazard to which plaintiff attributes her fall and injury, an uneven and “uplift [ed]” exterior step on premises owned by defendant-appellant, is not alleged or shown to constitute a defect violative of any specific statutory safety provision (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). No basis is shown, therefore, to impose liability upon defendant, an out-of-possession owner which had relinquished control over the premises years before the occurrence of plaintiffs injury (supra; Gomez v Walton Realty Assocs., 258 AD2d 307).

Parness, P. J., McCooe and Gangel-Jacob, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Misc. 2d 517, 716 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/do-espirito-santo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack