Dunn v. Reardon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunn v. Reardon

184 A.D.2d 1064, 584 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8323

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

DecidedJune 5, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 1064 (Dunn v. Reardon) 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

Dunn v. Reardon, 184 A.D.2d 1064, 584 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendants Eugene and Eleanor Tucker for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint. Defendants produced evidence in admissible form that demonstrated that the parking lot where plaintiff fell was not part of the premises leased to them and that they were not in control of the parking lot. Consequently, defendants owed no duty to keep the parking lot in good repair (see, Shire v Ferdinando, 161 AD2d 573, lv denied 76 NY2d 713; McGill v Caldors, Inc., 135 AD2d 1041; Elmlinger v Board of Educ., 132 AD2d 923). In opposition plaintiff submitted only the affidavit of his attor[1065]*1065ney, which was insufficient to raise a triable issue concerning defendants’ possession or control of the parking lot (see, McGill v Caldors, Inc., supra). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Auser, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendants Eugene and Eleanor Tucker for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint. Defendants produced evidence in admissible form that demonstrated that the parking lot where plaintiff fell was not part of the premises leased to them and that they were not in control of the parking lot. Consequently, defendants owed no duty to keep the parking lot in good repair (see, Shire v Ferdinando, 161 AD2d 573, lv denied 76 NY2d 713; McGill v Caldors, Inc., 135 AD2d 1041; Elmlinger v Board of Educ., 132 AD2d 923). In opposition plaintiff submitted only the affidavit of his attor[1065]*1065ney, which was insufficient to raise a triable issue concerning defendants’ possession or control of the parking lot (see, McGill v Caldors, Inc., supra). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Auser, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 1064, 584 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-reardon-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack