Fant v. Mayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fant v. Mayer

250 A.D.2d 355, 672 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5252

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

DecidedMay 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 355 (Fant v. Mayer) 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

Fant v. Mayer, 250 A.D.2d 355, 672 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about March 28, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

None of the Industrial Code provisions invoked by plaintiff, namely, 12 NYCRR 8-2.15 and 12 NYCRR former 16.2 (e), former 16.5 (a) and former 16.8 (d), require that trap doors be equipped with a movable railing when open, and the out-of-possession landlord cannot otherwise be held liable for an accident arising out of the negligent use of a trap door where, as here, there is no showing of any structural defect (see, Brown v Weinreb, 183 AD2d 562). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about March 28, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

None of the Industrial Code provisions invoked by plaintiff, namely, 12 NYCRR 8-2.15 and 12 NYCRR former 16.2 (e), former 16.5 (a) and former 16.8 (d), require that trap doors be equipped with a movable railing when open, and the out-of-possession landlord cannot otherwise be held liable for an accident arising out of the negligent use of a trap door where, as here, there is no showing of any structural defect (see, Brown v Weinreb, 183 AD2d 562). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 355, 672 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fant-v-mayer-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack