Greene v. Simmons

13 A.D.3d 266, 786 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15432
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 266 (Greene v. Simmons) 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. Simmons, 13 A.D.3d 266, 786 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered July 9, 2004, which denied the motion of defendant Park Avenue Associates, LLC (Park Avenue) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Park Avenue was a maintenance contractor for a codefendant that sold oil and boiler services to another codefendant, the owner of a building where plaintiff and her family lived. Plaintiffs infant decedent fell into a bathtub filled with scalding hot water, sustaining ultimately deadly injuries. Factual issues are raised on this record as to the extent of Park Avenue’s obligations to maintain the building’s boiler, whether it met its common-law duty toward the residents of that building to use ordinary care (see Galarza v Pacific Steel Boiler Corp., 147 AD2d 527 [1989]), and whether a failure in the discharge of such duty as it had to the building residents was a substantial cause of the accident. The motion court correctly found triable issues based on the affidavit of plaintiffs expert. On the material issue of industry custom and practice (see e.g. Munzer v Town of Hemp-stead, 8 AD3d 247 [2004]), the expert’s affidavit was sufficiently detailed and grounded in relevant experience. Triable questions were raised, as well, by the deposition testimony of Park Avenue’s employee, who performed work at the home where plaintiff and her family lived, and who stated that the safety device known as a mixing valve was a part of the boiler, for which Park Avenue was responsible, and was routinely included in, every boiler installation that he had seen. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Related

Gold v. 35 East Associates LLC
136 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance v. AGG Creperie
42 F. Supp. 3d 444 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Simmons v. Sacchetti
65 A.D.3d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 266, 786 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-simmons-nyappdiv-2004.