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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 4, 2001·Published

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.

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

284 A.D.2d 305 (Juhasz v. B-21 Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related