Hicks v. Citibank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hicks v. Citibank, N. A.

267 A.D.2d 185, 700 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13397

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 185 (Hicks v. Citibank, N. A.) 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

Hicks v. Citibank, N. A., 267 A.D.2d 185, 700 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about August 25, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that the attorney’s affir[186]*186mation and photographs submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment were sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Moreover, most of defendant’s contentions in this regard are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Szigyarto v Szigyarto, 64 NY2d 275, 280). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about August 25, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that the attorney’s affir[186]*186mation and photographs submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment were sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Moreover, most of defendant’s contentions in this regard are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Szigyarto v Szigyarto, 64 NY2d 275, 280). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 185, 700 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-citibank-n-a-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack