Kaplan v. New York Mercantile Exchange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. New York Mercantile Exchange

55 A.D.3d 406, 864 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 406 (Kaplan v. New York Mercantile Exchange) 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

Kaplan v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 55 A.D.3d 406, 864 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 20, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant leased commercial property from Battery Park City. Defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to maintain the area outside the boundaries described in the lease. Absent evidence that defendant occupied, controlled or was responsible for maintaining the area where plaintiff fell, it cannot be liable for plaintiffs injuries (see Richardson v Lenox Terrace Dev. Assoc., 41 AD3d 108, 109 [2007]; Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y., 17 AD3d 252, 254 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 20, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant leased commercial property from Battery Park City. Defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to maintain the area outside the boundaries described in the lease. Absent evidence that defendant occupied, controlled or was responsible for maintaining the area where plaintiff fell, it cannot be liable for plaintiffs injuries (see Richardson v Lenox Terrace Dev. Assoc., 41 AD3d 108, 109 [2007]; Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y., 17 AD3d 252, 254 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 406, 864 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-new-york-mercantile-exchange-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack