Liso v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liso v. City of New York

8 A.D.3d 103, 778 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8348

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

DecidedJune 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 103 (Liso v. City of New York) 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

Liso v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 103, 778 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry L. Crispino, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2003, which granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the City’s motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

While the City’s Department of Farks witnesses were able to testify from their personal knowledge that the site of plaintiffs slip and fall was not on park grounds, their testimony was insufficient to establish that the site of the accident was not otherwise owned by the City or that it was owned by the Board of Education. Accordingly, since questions of fact remain regarding its ownership of the accident site, the grant of summary judgment to the City was unwarranted. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry L. Crispino, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2003, which granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the City’s motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

While the City’s Department of Farks witnesses were able to testify from their personal knowledge that the site of plaintiffs slip and fall was not on park grounds, their testimony was insufficient to establish that the site of the accident was not otherwise owned by the City or that it was owned by the Board of Education. Accordingly, since questions of fact remain regarding its ownership of the accident site, the grant of summary judgment to the City was unwarranted. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 103, 778 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liso-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.