Feliciano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feliciano v. City of New York

304 A.D.2d 416, 757 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4148

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 416 (Feliciano v. City of New York) 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

Feliciano v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 416, 757 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 28, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s expert asserted that improper patching of a hole in [417]*417the public sidewalk abutting defendants-appellants’ premises was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff. Defendants-appellants’ manager’s deposition testimony concerning sidewalk repair procedures raises an issue of fact concerning whether defendants-appellants performed the alleged defective patchwork, and are thus subject to liability (see Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 452-453 [1996]). Accordingly, defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them was properly denied. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 28, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s expert asserted that improper patching of a hole in [417]*417the public sidewalk abutting defendants-appellants’ premises was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff. Defendants-appellants’ manager’s deposition testimony concerning sidewalk repair procedures raises an issue of fact concerning whether defendants-appellants performed the alleged defective patchwork, and are thus subject to liability (see Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 452-453 [1996]). Accordingly, defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them was properly denied. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 416, 757 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feliciano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack