Grossman v. Janette H. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grossman v. Janette H. Corp.

18 A.D.2d 982, 238 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4194

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 982 (Grossman v. Janette H. Corp.) 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

Grossman v. Janette H. Corp., 18 A.D.2d 982, 238 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on August 22, 1962, granting plaintiff’s motion to strike but defense of the Statute of Limitations and denying defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment reversed, .on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the cross .motion granted, with $10 costs. The complaint for personal injuries alleges an insufficiently illuminated and defective stairway on which plaintiff fell and was injured. The action was commenced four and a half years after the cause arose. Although the term “nuisance” is used in describing the dangerous eon- , ditions, the action is one in negligence. (Bowers v. Village of South Glens Falls, 260 App. Div. 439, 440, affd. 286 N. Y. 616; Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hosp. Assn., 4 A D 2d 874, affd. 5 N Y 2d 952). The three-year Statute of Limitations is therefore applicable (Katz v. Manhattan General, 2 A D 2d 876, affd. 3 N Y 2d 840). Since the common-law dhty existed to maintain the stairway for tenants free from negligence, the additional statutory duty does not affect the basic nature of the liability or enlarge the limitations of time. (Lorberblatt v. Gerst, 10 N Y 2d 244; Brady v. Rudin Management Co., 11 N Y 2d 681.) Concur—McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order entered on August 22, 1962, granting plaintiff’s motion to strike but defense of the Statute of Limitations and denying defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment reversed, .on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the cross .motion granted, with $10 costs. The complaint for personal injuries alleges an insufficiently illuminated and defective stairway on which plaintiff fell and was injured. The action was commenced four and a half years after the cause arose. Although the term “nuisance” is used in describing the dangerous eon- , ditions, the action is one in negligence. (Bowers v. Village of South Glens Falls, 260 App. Div. 439, 440, affd. 286 N. Y. 616; Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hosp. Assn., 4 A D 2d 874, affd. 5 N Y 2d 952). The three-year Statute of Limitations is therefore applicable (Katz v. Manhattan General, 2 A D 2d 876, affd. 3 N Y 2d 840). Since the common-law dhty existed to maintain the stairway for tenants free from negligence, the additional statutory duty does not affect the basic nature of the liability or enlarge the limitations of time. (Lorberblatt v. Gerst, 10 N Y 2d 244; Brady v. Rudin Management Co., 11 N Y 2d 681.) Concur—McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 982, 238 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossman-v-janette-h-corp-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack