Loperena v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loperena v. New York City Housing Authority

191 A.D.2d 352, 596 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2709

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 352 (Loperena 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

Loperena v. New York City Housing Authority, 191 A.D.2d 352, 596 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered May 29, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether the alleged defect in the lock had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the incident to permit defendant to discover and correct it (see, Perez v City of New York, 168 AD2d 227, appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 872, lv denied 78 NY2d 854). Whether defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries also presents a triable issue. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered May 29, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether the alleged defect in the lock had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the incident to permit defendant to discover and correct it (see, Perez v City of New York, 168 AD2d 227, appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 872, lv denied 78 NY2d 854). Whether defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries also presents a triable issue. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 352, 596 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loperena-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack