Flickner v. Hungerford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flickner v. Hungerford

186 A.D.2d 992, 590 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11518

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 992 (Flickner v. Hungerford) 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

Flickner v. Hungerford, 186 A.D.2d 992, 590 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Because the absentee lessor retained no control of the premises and had not agreed to keep the premises in repair, she was not responsible for the condition of the premises that caused plaintiffs injury (see, Tanoury v Cancilla, 149 AD2d 960). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Because the absentee lessor retained no control of the premises and had not agreed to keep the premises in repair, she was not responsible for the condition of the premises that caused plaintiffs injury (see, Tanoury v Cancilla, 149 AD2d 960). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 992, 590 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flickner-v-hungerford-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack