Juhasz v. B-21 Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Juhasz v. B-21 Co.

284 A.D.2d 305, 725 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5628

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

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 305 (Juhasz v. B-21 Co.) 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

Juhasz v. B-21 Co., 284 A.D.2d 305, 725 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Giunta Brothers, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated April 3, 2000, as, upon granting, in effect, reargument to the defendants B-21 Co., d/b/a Broadway Shopping Center, Charles Muss, and Hyman Muss, vacated an order of the same court, dated November 4, 1999, and denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

There is a question of fact as to whether the appellant had notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall, and whether the appellant was solely responsible o for maintaining the area where the accident occurred (see, Fundaro v City of New York, 272 AD2d 516; Weisenthal v Pick-man, 153 AD2d 849, 851). Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Smith and Cozier, 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 Giunta Brothers, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated April 3, 2000, as, upon granting, in effect, reargument to the defendants B-21 Co., d/b/a Broadway Shopping Center, Charles Muss, and Hyman Muss, vacated an order of the same court, dated November 4, 1999, and denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

There is a question of fact as to whether the appellant had notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall, and whether the appellant was solely responsible o for maintaining the area where the accident occurred (see, Fundaro v City of New York, 272 AD2d 516; Weisenthal v Pick-man, 153 AD2d 849, 851). Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 305, 725 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juhasz-v-b-21-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack