Higgins-Barber v. Raffles International

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Higgins-Barber v. Raffles International

35 A.D.3d 225, 826 N.Y.S.2d 238

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 225 (Higgins-Barber v. Raffles International) 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

Higgins-Barber v. Raffles International, 35 A.D.3d 225, 826 N.Y.S.2d 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 6, 2006, which granted the motion by third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendant made an uncontroverted showing that it neither installed nor maintained the shower door or its component parts, including the roller assembly. The sole submission by third-party plaintiffs in opposition was the affidavit of the construction manager during the renovation of the hotel in the mid-1990s, when the shower door was purportedly installed. This failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether perceived defects years earlier had contributed in any way to the occurrence of the alleged accident (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 6, 2006, which granted the motion by third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendant made an uncontroverted showing that it neither installed nor maintained the shower door or its component parts, including the roller assembly. The sole submission by third-party plaintiffs in opposition was the affidavit of the construction manager during the renovation of the hotel in the mid-1990s, when the shower door was purportedly installed. This failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether perceived defects years earlier had contributed in any way to the occurrence of the alleged accident (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 225, 826 N.Y.S.2d 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-barber-v-raffles-international-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack