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

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 307 (King v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 307, 653 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack