Esposito v. KPC Sport, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esposito v. KPC Sport, Inc.

269 A.D.2d 764, 703 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 764 (Esposito v. KPC Sport, Inc.) 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

Esposito v. KPC Sport, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 764, 703 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this negligence action. Plaintiffs allege that Donald Esposito (plaintiff) was injured when he was caused to fall by a gap between a section of the bleachers at defendant’s hockey rink. They allege that plaintiff did not see the gap because the light[765]*765ing in the facility was poor. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether defendant maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241; see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Law-ton, 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, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this negligence action. Plaintiffs allege that Donald Esposito (plaintiff) was injured when he was caused to fall by a gap between a section of the bleachers at defendant’s hockey rink. They allege that plaintiff did not see the gap because the light[765]*765ing in the facility was poor. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether defendant maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241; see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Law-ton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 764, 703 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-kpc-sport-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack