Kappstatter v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kappstatter v. City of New York

8 A.D.3d 34, 777 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7576

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

DecidedJune 3, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 34 (Kappstatter 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

Kappstatter v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 34, 777 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered June 19, 2003, which granted summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, the complaint and all cross claims as against defendant 34th Street Partnership and the additional-party defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record reveals that neither 34th Street Partnership nor the additional-party defendants, who were engaged in installing and removing signage in the business district pursuant to various contractual arrangements, created the condition that caused plaintiffs trip and fall. Nor did any of these parties comprehensively assume the duties of the landowner pursuant to their various agreements. Under the circumstances, none of the moving defendants owed a duty to plaintiff (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered June 19, 2003, which granted summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, the complaint and all cross claims as against defendant 34th Street Partnership and the additional-party defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record reveals that neither 34th Street Partnership nor the additional-party defendants, who were engaged in installing and removing signage in the business district pursuant to various contractual arrangements, created the condition that caused plaintiffs trip and fall. Nor did any of these parties comprehensively assume the duties of the landowner pursuant to their various agreements. Under the circumstances, none of the moving defendants owed a duty to plaintiff (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 34, 777 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kappstatter-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack