Gluszak v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gluszak v. City of New York

15 A.D.3d 439, 789 N.Y.S.2d 448

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 439 (Gluszak v. City of New York) 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

Gluszak v. City of New York, 15 A.D.3d 439, 789 N.Y.S.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Raytone Plumbing Specialities, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Raytone Plumbing Specialities, Inc. (hereinafter Raytone), failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Raytone created the allegedly defective condition at issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Raytone’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

In light of our determination, the parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic. H. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, 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 defendant Raytone Plumbing Specialities, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Raytone Plumbing Specialities, Inc. (hereinafter Raytone), failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Raytone created the allegedly defective condition at issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Raytone’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

In light of our determination, the parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic. H. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 439, 789 N.Y.S.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gluszak-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack