Fenty v. 634 Morris Park Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fenty v. 634 Morris Park Associates, LLC

291 A.D.2d 275, 737 N.Y.S.2d 286, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1591

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 23, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to that part of the complaint seeking recovery upon the theory that defendant created the complained of hazard, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied to the extent that plaintiff seeks to recover on the theory that defendant created the complained of hazard, since the record contains conflicting testimonial and documentary evidence giving rise to a triable issue as to whether the alleged hazard was in fact created by defendant (see, Gaillard v Olympia & York Rand Co., 289 AD2d 181). We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 23, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to that part of the complaint seeking recovery upon the theory that defendant created the complained of hazard, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied to the extent that plaintiff seeks to recover on the theory that defendant created the complained of hazard, since the record contains conflicting testimonial and documentary evidence giving rise to a triable issue as to whether the alleged hazard was in fact created by defendant (see, Gaillard v Olympia & York Rand Co., 289 AD2d 181). We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Fenty v. 634 Morris Park Associates, LLC, 291 A.D.2d 275, 737 N.Y.S.2d 286, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

291 A.D.2d 275 (Fenty v. 634 Morris Park Associates, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related