Fisko v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisko v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

293 A.D.2d 350, 740 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 350 (Fisko v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Fisko v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 293 A.D.2d 350, 740 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 10, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, could not be held liable under the circumstances, since there is no indication that it had notice of the alleged hazard, a defectively secured drain hole cover, and the relevant lease provision plainly demonstrates that the parties to the lease intended that the tenant would be responsible for routinely maintaining the “good order and condition” of fixtures such as the drain hole cover (see, Velazquez v Tyler Graphics, 214 AD2d 489). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 10, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, could not be held liable under the circumstances, since there is no indication that it had notice of the alleged hazard, a defectively secured drain hole cover, and the relevant lease provision plainly demonstrates that the parties to the lease intended that the tenant would be responsible for routinely maintaining the “good order and condition” of fixtures such as the drain hole cover (see, Velazquez v Tyler Graphics, 214 AD2d 489). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 350, 740 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisko-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack