Garufi v. Daiichi Real Estate Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garufi v. Daiichi Real Estate Co.

306 A.D.2d 183, 760 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7296

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

DecidedJune 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 183 (Garufi v. Daiichi Real Estate Co.) 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

Garufi v. Daiichi Real Estate Co., 306 A.D.2d 183, 760 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 1, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant Otis Elevator Company and the cross motion of defendant Daiichi Real Estate Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Otis having met its threshold burden, plaintiff failed to satisfactorily raise any issues of fact to preclude the grant of summary judgment.

The complaint was also properly dismissed as against defendant Daiichi, an out-of-possession owner without actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect (see Healy v ARP Cable, 299 AD2d 152, 154 [2002]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner 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 (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 1, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant Otis Elevator Company and the cross motion of defendant Daiichi Real Estate Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Otis having met its threshold burden, plaintiff failed to satisfactorily raise any issues of fact to preclude the grant of summary judgment.

The complaint was also properly dismissed as against defendant Daiichi, an out-of-possession owner without actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect (see Healy v ARP Cable, 299 AD2d 152, 154 [2002]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 183, 760 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garufi-v-daiichi-real-estate-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack