Goldfarb v. Kzichevsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldfarb v. Kzichevsky

280 A.D.2d 583, 720 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1672

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 20, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated December 22, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the evening of February 16, 1995, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the decedent Marvin Goldfarb, a tenant of the defendants, was allegedly injured when he stepped on an object in the driveway of the defendants’ premises. The exterior light to the premises was allegedly off at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants were negligent in that they supplied inadequate lighting for the driveway.

The defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they received no notice of the allegedly inadequate lighting or that the lighting condition was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injury. The Supreme Court, therefore, properly denied their motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; cf., Rivas v Waldbaums Supermarket, 247 AD2d 600). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity 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 and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated December 22, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the evening of February 16, 1995, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the decedent Marvin Goldfarb, a tenant of the defendants, was allegedly injured when he stepped on an object in the driveway of the defendants’ premises. The exterior light to the premises was allegedly off at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants were negligent in that they supplied inadequate lighting for the driveway.

The defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they received no notice of the allegedly inadequate lighting or that the lighting condition was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injury. The Supreme Court, therefore, properly denied their motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; cf., Rivas v Waldbaums Supermarket, 247 AD2d 600). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Goldfarb v. Kzichevsky, 280 A.D.2d 583, 720 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 583 (Goldfarb v. Kzichevsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related