Hecker v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hecker v. New York City Housing Authority

200 A.D.2d 378, 608 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 103

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 378 (Hecker v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Hecker v. New York City Housing Authority, 200 A.D.2d 378, 608 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 13, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for personal injuries suffered as a result of a fall on a staircase in a building owned and operated by defendant New York City Housing Authority, plaintiff’s notice of claim, alleging that she slipped and fell due to "wet, slippery, debris and cracked, broken and poorly lit” conditions in the stairway between the second and third floors, was sufficiently particular to allow a full and effective investigation of the staircase, which was one of but two in the building (cf., Rivera v New York City Hous. Auth., 169 AD2d 414, 416).

Concerning defendant’s argument that the allegation of negligence on its part is too speculative to take before a jury, suffice it to say that at this stage of the litigation, in the absence of any evidentiary material other than plaintiff’s testimony at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, it is too early to say that plaintiff will not be able to prove causality and notice.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case, and failure to do so requires denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 13, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for personal injuries suffered as a result of a fall on a staircase in a building owned and operated by defendant New York City Housing Authority, plaintiff’s notice of claim, alleging that she slipped and fell due to "wet, slippery, debris and cracked, broken and poorly lit” conditions in the stairway between the second and third floors, was sufficiently particular to allow a full and effective investigation of the staircase, which was one of but two in the building (cf., Rivera v New York City Hous. Auth., 169 AD2d 414, 416).

Concerning defendant’s argument that the allegation of negligence on its part is too speculative to take before a jury, suffice it to say that at this stage of the litigation, in the absence of any evidentiary material other than plaintiff’s testimony at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, it is too early to say that plaintiff will not be able to prove causality and notice.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case, and failure to do so requires denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 378, 608 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hecker-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack