King v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. New York City Housing Authority

235 A.D.2d 307, 653 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 510

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 23, 1997·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered October 3, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as moot, plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to file a late notice of claim or amend said notice nunc pro tunc, and to amend her complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It must be held, on constraint of Martinez v Lazaroff (48 NY2d 819), that the landlord’s alleged failure to provide cold water in plaintiffs kitchen was not a proximate cause of her slipping on water she was collecting in a pot in the bathroom. In that regard, it makes no difference whether the intervening act was plaintiff’s or another’s (see, Abreu v Stratford Realty Assocs., 208 AD2d 465). In view of foregoing, we need not reach the issues raised by plaintiff’s cross motion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered October 3, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as moot, plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to file a late notice of claim or amend said notice nunc pro tunc, and to amend her complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It must be held, on constraint of Martinez v Lazaroff (48 NY2d 819), that the landlord’s alleged failure to provide cold water in plaintiffs kitchen was not a proximate cause of her slipping on water she was collecting in a pot in the bathroom. In that regard, it makes no difference whether the intervening act was plaintiff’s or another’s (see, Abreu v Stratford Realty Assocs., 208 AD2d 465). In view of foregoing, we need not reach the issues raised by plaintiff’s cross motion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

King v. New York City Housing Authority, 235 A.D.2d 307, 653 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

235 A.D.2d 307 (King v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related