Greene v. Municipal Housing Authority of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greene v. Municipal Housing Authority of Utica

307 A.D.2d 740, 762 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7887

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 740 (Greene v. Municipal Housing Authority of Utica) 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

Greene v. Municipal Housing Authority of Utica, 307 A.D.2d 740, 762 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Grow, J.), entered July 18, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that she sustained when she slipped and fell on icy steps leading from the apartment she leased from defendant to the common sidewalk. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendant met its initial burden on the motion by submitting the lease, which provides that the tenant is responsible for removal of ice and snow, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting proof that defendant engaged in a “course of conduct demonstrating that [it] * * * assumed responsibility to maintain” the subject walkway (Gelardo v ASMA Realty Corp., 137 AD2d 787, 788 [1988]). Whether plaintiff reasonably relied on that course of conduct to her detriment is an issue of fact for trial (cf. Falu v 233 Assoc., 258 AD2d 342, 343 [1999]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Grow, J.), entered July 18, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that she sustained when she slipped and fell on icy steps leading from the apartment she leased from defendant to the common sidewalk. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendant met its initial burden on the motion by submitting the lease, which provides that the tenant is responsible for removal of ice and snow, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting proof that defendant engaged in a “course of conduct demonstrating that [it] * * * assumed responsibility to maintain” the subject walkway (Gelardo v ASMA Realty Corp., 137 AD2d 787, 788 [1988]). Whether plaintiff reasonably relied on that course of conduct to her detriment is an issue of fact for trial (cf. Falu v 233 Assoc., 258 AD2d 342, 343 [1999]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 740, 762 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-municipal-housing-authority-of-utica-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack