Golan v. Astuto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golan v. Astuto

242 A.D.2d 669, 662 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9206

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 669 (Golan v. Astuto) 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

Golan v. Astuto, 242 A.D.2d 669, 662 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated June 11, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sustained injuries to his face when he attempted to saw a branch of a tree that had fallen onto his property from the defendants’ adjoining property. Where, as here, there is no evidence that the tree was defective or that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of any defective condition in the tree before it fell, the defendants did not have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent any potential harm that may have occurred to the plaintiff on his property as a result of the tree falling on his property (see, Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d 349, 350-351, cert denied 476 US 1117; Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 NY2d 446, 449). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated June 11, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sustained injuries to his face when he attempted to saw a branch of a tree that had fallen onto his property from the defendants’ adjoining property. Where, as here, there is no evidence that the tree was defective or that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of any defective condition in the tree before it fell, the defendants did not have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent any potential harm that may have occurred to the plaintiff on his property as a result of the tree falling on his property (see, Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d 349, 350-351, cert denied 476 US 1117; Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 NY2d 446, 449). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 669, 662 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golan-v-astuto-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack