Kalson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalson v. City of New York

269 A.D.2d 209, 703 N.Y.S.2d 102, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1312

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 209 (Kalson v. City of New York) 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

Kalson v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 209, 703 N.Y.S.2d 102, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stall-man, J.), entered on or about August 9, 1999, which denied defendant-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants-appellants’ motion was properly denied since they did not establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the movants failed to present evidence to negate the hypothesis that an employee or agent working on their behalf installed the sidewalk and/or performed repairs or maintenance on the portion of the sidewalk where plaintiff was injured and thereby caused or exacerbated the hazard that is alleged to have caused plaintiffs harm (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Defendants-appellants’ witness, an employee of one of the movants, testified at his deposition merely that he did not know whether his employer had hired anyone to install, repair or maintain the sidewalk or whether his supervisor was involved in overseeing or inspecting the installation of the sidewalk in question. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stall-man, J.), entered on or about August 9, 1999, which denied defendant-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants-appellants’ motion was properly denied since they did not establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the movants failed to present evidence to negate the hypothesis that an employee or agent working on their behalf installed the sidewalk and/or performed repairs or maintenance on the portion of the sidewalk where plaintiff was injured and thereby caused or exacerbated the hazard that is alleged to have caused plaintiffs harm (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Defendants-appellants’ witness, an employee of one of the movants, testified at his deposition merely that he did not know whether his employer had hired anyone to install, repair or maintain the sidewalk or whether his supervisor was involved in overseeing or inspecting the installation of the sidewalk in question. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 209, 703 N.Y.S.2d 102, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack