Kemraj v. 1585 Broadway Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kemraj v. 1585 Broadway Condominium

291 A.D.2d 323, 737 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 323 (Kemraj v. 1585 Broadway Condominium) 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

Kemraj v. 1585 Broadway Condominium, 291 A.D.2d 323, 737 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about March 15, 2000, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiffs particularized description of the crack on defendant’s walkway that caused him to trip and fall, together with his testimony that the walkway had contained numerous such cracks for several months prior to his accident, was sufficient to establish a prima facie negligence case and to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s argument that the walkway was a public sidewalk was improperly made for the first time in reply, and was refuted in any event by record evidence that the walkway crossed through defendant’s building, and by testimony of defendant’s property manager that he caused the walkway to be resurfaced after the accident. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about March 15, 2000, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiffs particularized description of the crack on defendant’s walkway that caused him to trip and fall, together with his testimony that the walkway had contained numerous such cracks for several months prior to his accident, was sufficient to establish a prima facie negligence case and to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s argument that the walkway was a public sidewalk was improperly made for the first time in reply, and was refuted in any event by record evidence that the walkway crossed through defendant’s building, and by testimony of defendant’s property manager that he caused the walkway to be resurfaced after the accident. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 323, 737 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemraj-v-1585-broadway-condominium-nyappdiv-2002.