Garcia v. Home Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Home Center, Inc.

240 A.D.2d 629, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6847

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

DecidedJune 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 629 (Garcia v. Home Center, Inc.) 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

Garcia v. Home Center, Inc., 240 A.D.2d 629, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Moses Klug and Esther Klug appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 16, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

[630]*630Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendants Moses King and Esther King, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendants Moses King and Esther King established that they were not responsible for the maintenance and repair of the leased premises (see, Wright v Feinblum, 220 AD2d 660). The plaintiff failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to allege a violation by the Klugs of any specific provision of the Administrative Code of the City of New York sufficient to impose liability (see, Kilimnik v Mirage Rest., 223 AD2d 530; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Moses Klug and Esther Klug appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 16, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

[630]*630Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendants Moses King and Esther King, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendants Moses King and Esther King established that they were not responsible for the maintenance and repair of the leased premises (see, Wright v Feinblum, 220 AD2d 660). The plaintiff failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to allege a violation by the Klugs of any specific provision of the Administrative Code of the City of New York sufficient to impose liability (see, Kilimnik v Mirage Rest., 223 AD2d 530; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 629, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-home-center-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack