Lobsenzer v. Mintz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lobsenzer v. Mintz

283 A.D.2d 556, 725 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5329

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 556 (Lobsenzer v. Mintz) 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

Lobsenzer v. Mintz, 283 A.D.2d 556, 725 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), entered February 29, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There are triable issues of fact as to whether the defect in question was trivial, and, if not, whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition upon which plaintiffs decedent fell (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Roberts v Consolidated Edison, 273 AD2d 369; Fox v Kamal Corp., 271 AD2d 485).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), entered February 29, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There are triable issues of fact as to whether the defect in question was trivial, and, if not, whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition upon which plaintiffs decedent fell (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Roberts v Consolidated Edison, 273 AD2d 369; Fox v Kamal Corp., 271 AD2d 485).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 556, 725 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lobsenzer-v-mintz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack