Livesey v. 1689 First Avenue, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Livesey v. 1689 First Avenue, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 185, 683 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13728

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 185 (Livesey v. 1689 First Avenue, Inc.) 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

Livesey v. 1689 First Avenue, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 185, 683 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Whelan, J.), entered April 22, 1998, which, upon the prior grant of defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to [186]*186set aside the jury verdict in plaintiffs favor for evidentiary insufficiency, dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied and the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants 1689 First Avenue, Inc. and Paradise Painting reinstated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding on the post-verdict motion, plaintiffs version of the events preceding the accident in which she was injured provided the jury with an adequate evidentiary basis upon which to infer that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to give rise to constructive notice of its existence.

Plaintiffs appeal from the court’s decision dated November 20, 1995 has previously been dismissed sua sponte by order of this Court entered April 17, 1997 (M-1218), as having been taken from a non-appealable paper. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Whelan, J.), entered April 22, 1998, which, upon the prior grant of defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to [186]*186set aside the jury verdict in plaintiffs favor for evidentiary insufficiency, dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied and the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants 1689 First Avenue, Inc. and Paradise Painting reinstated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding on the post-verdict motion, plaintiffs version of the events preceding the accident in which she was injured provided the jury with an adequate evidentiary basis upon which to infer that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to give rise to constructive notice of its existence.

Plaintiffs appeal from the court’s decision dated November 20, 1995 has previously been dismissed sua sponte by order of this Court entered April 17, 1997 (M-1218), as having been taken from a non-appealable paper. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 185, 683 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livesey-v-1689-first-avenue-inc-nyappdiv-1998.