Jensen v. Oak Point Assets, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jensen v. Oak Point Assets, LLC

295 A.D.2d 114, 742 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5894

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 114 (Jensen v. Oak Point Assets, LLC) 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

Jensen v. Oak Point Assets, LLC, 295 A.D.2d 114, 742 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 29, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, General Obligations Law § 11-106 is applicable here and permits plaintiffs assertion of this type of common-law negligence claim once barred under [115]*115the “firefighter’s rule.” In addition, in view of material factual questions as to whether the statutory and code violations alleged against defendant were reasonably or practically connected to plaintiffs harm, the motion court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Lusenskas v Axelrod, 183 AD2d 244, 247-248, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 300). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner 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 (Louis York, J.), entered November 29, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, General Obligations Law § 11-106 is applicable here and permits plaintiffs assertion of this type of common-law negligence claim once barred under [115]*115the “firefighter’s rule.” In addition, in view of material factual questions as to whether the statutory and code violations alleged against defendant were reasonably or practically connected to plaintiffs harm, the motion court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Lusenskas v Axelrod, 183 AD2d 244, 247-248, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 300). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 114, 742 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jensen-v-oak-point-assets-llc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack