Lopez v. New York City Housing Authority

255 A.D.2d 160, 679 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11883
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 160 (Lopez 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
Lopez v. New York City Housing Authority, 255 A.D.2d 160, 679 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 11, 1997, which, in an action by a tenant against her landlord for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a staircase leading from the lobby to the exit of the building, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony of plaintiff and her mother as to the frequent accumulations of garbage on the staircase over weekends when it was used by “a lot of guys hanging out there and partying and drinking”, coupled with the evidence of a gap in scheduled cleanings between mid-Sunday afternoon and mid-Monday morning and of the assignment over the entire weekend of a skeleton maintenance crew consisting of a single janitor responsible for two 14-story buildings containing some 112 apartments and their common areas, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of a recurrent dangerous condition. Defendant mischaracterizes plaintiffs proof in arguing that at most it shows that it had only a “general awareness” of a dangerous condition (citing Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Rather, plaintiffs proof tends to show that defendant negligently maintained the staircase by failing to have in effect a clean-up schedule sufficiently frequent to avoid the creation of a dangerous condition of which it had constructive notice (compare, Crosby v Ogden Servs. Corp., 236 AD2d 220, and Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth., 249 AD2d 59, with Ginsberg v New York City Tr. Auth., 247 AD2d 307; cf., Piacquadio [161]*161v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Tavis v. 885 Third Avenue Corp.
43 A.D.3d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hayes v. Riverbend Housing Co.
40 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Benn v. Municipal Housing Authority
275 A.D.2d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 160, 679 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.