Kinfe v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinfe v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

232 A.D.2d 373, 648 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated March 1994, which denied their separate motions for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that material issues of fact exist which preclude awarding summary judgment in favor of the defendants (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the allegedly hazardous condition was open and obvious and thus did not create an unreasonable risk of harm (see, O’Neil v Port Auth., [374]*374111 AD2d 375; cf., Pilato v Diamond, 209 AD2d 393; Ray v Crown Drug Stores, 34 AD2d 679). Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the activity engaged in by the plaintiff’s decedent did not involve an obvious danger for which there was no duty to warn (cf., Caris v Mele, 134 AD2d 475). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated March 1994, which denied their separate motions for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that material issues of fact exist which preclude awarding summary judgment in favor of the defendants (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the allegedly hazardous condition was open and obvious and thus did not create an unreasonable risk of harm (see, O’Neil v Port Auth., [374]*374111 AD2d 375; cf., Pilato v Diamond, 209 AD2d 393; Ray v Crown Drug Stores, 34 AD2d 679). Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the activity engaged in by the plaintiff’s decedent did not involve an obvious danger for which there was no duty to warn (cf., Caris v Mele, 134 AD2d 475). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Kinfe v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 232 A.D.2d 373, 648 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 373 (Kinfe v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related