Liebowitz v. DeJoseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebowitz v. DeJoseph

226 A.D.2d 682, 642 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596

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

DecidedApril 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 682 (Liebowitz v. DeJoseph) 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

Liebowitz v. DeJoseph, 226 A.D.2d 682, 642 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Larry DeJoseph appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered March 8, 1995, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Larry DeJoseph, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff sustained injuries when she fell ón a public sidewalk in front of premises owned by the appellant. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant created the allegedly defective condition in the sidewalk or caused the defect to occur because of some special use (see, Surowiec v City of New York, 139 AD2d 727). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Larry DeJoseph appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered March 8, 1995, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Larry DeJoseph, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff sustained injuries when she fell ón a public sidewalk in front of premises owned by the appellant. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant created the allegedly defective condition in the sidewalk or caused the defect to occur because of some special use (see, Surowiec v City of New York, 139 AD2d 727). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 682, 642 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebowitz-v-dejoseph-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack