Hill v. Spitzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Spitzer

267 A.D.2d 149, 700 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13213

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 149 (Hill v. Spitzer) 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

Hill v. Spitzer, 267 A.D.2d 149, 700 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 23, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hazard to which plaintiff attributes her fall and injury, an uneven, raised and torn area of carpeting on premises owned by defendants, did not constitute a structural and/or design defect violative of a statute (see, Levy v Daitz, 196 AD2d 454). Accordingly, defendants, out-of-possession landlords who, pursuant to a lease, retained the right to reenter the subject premises to make needed repairs but did not undertake to repair or maintain the premises, may not be held liable for plaintiff’s harm (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 23, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hazard to which plaintiff attributes her fall and injury, an uneven, raised and torn area of carpeting on premises owned by defendants, did not constitute a structural and/or design defect violative of a statute (see, Levy v Daitz, 196 AD2d 454). Accordingly, defendants, out-of-possession landlords who, pursuant to a lease, retained the right to reenter the subject premises to make needed repairs but did not undertake to repair or maintain the premises, may not be held liable for plaintiff’s harm (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 149, 700 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-spitzer-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack