Ingordo v. Square Plus Operating Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ingordo v. Square Plus Operating Corp.

276 A.D.2d 528, 714 N.Y.S.2d 693, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10180

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 528 (Ingordo v. Square Plus Operating 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

Ingordo v. Square Plus Operating Corp., 276 A.D.2d 528, 714 N.Y.S.2d 693, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered November 1, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

As the managing and operating agent for the owner of the parking garage in which the plaintiff Sally A. Ingordo was injured, the defendant may be liable for nonfeasance only if it was in complete and exclusive control of the management of the garage (see, Lennon v Oakhurst Gardens Corp., 229 AD2d 897, 898; Ioannidou v Kingswood Mgt. Corp., 203 AD2d 248; Keo v Kimball Brooklands Corp., 189 AD2d 679). Since the evidence submitted on the motion established that the defendant did not have exclusive control, the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Ioannidou v Kingswood Mgt. Corp., supra). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the unpleaded affirmative defense of agency as the plaintiffs are not surprised or prejudiced thereby (see, Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 54 NY2d 883; Rosario v City of New York, 261 AD2d 380).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered November 1, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

As the managing and operating agent for the owner of the parking garage in which the plaintiff Sally A. Ingordo was injured, the defendant may be liable for nonfeasance only if it was in complete and exclusive control of the management of the garage (see, Lennon v Oakhurst Gardens Corp., 229 AD2d 897, 898; Ioannidou v Kingswood Mgt. Corp., 203 AD2d 248; Keo v Kimball Brooklands Corp., 189 AD2d 679). Since the evidence submitted on the motion established that the defendant did not have exclusive control, the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Ioannidou v Kingswood Mgt. Corp., supra). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the unpleaded affirmative defense of agency as the plaintiffs are not surprised or prejudiced thereby (see, Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 54 NY2d 883; Rosario v City of New York, 261 AD2d 380).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 528, 714 N.Y.S.2d 693, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingordo-v-square-plus-operating-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack