Maggio v. Citibank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maggio v. Citibank, N. A.

271 A.D.2d 235, 705 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3875

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

DecidedApril 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 235 (Maggio v. Citibank, N. A.) 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

Maggio v. Citibank, N. A., 271 A.D.2d 235, 705 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered February 11, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Evidence adduced on the motion shows that appellant, a bank and owner of the property where plaintiff, a prospective buyer, fell when a porch railing broke, had conducted inspections of the property prior to the accident that resulted in an internal written report noting that the porch needed repair. In addition, plaintiffs’ architect’s affidavit opined that the “severely rotten” wooden railing was an open and obvious condition that existed for at least a year prior to the accident. Such evidence suffices to raise an issue of fact as to whether appellant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective railing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered February 11, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Evidence adduced on the motion shows that appellant, a bank and owner of the property where plaintiff, a prospective buyer, fell when a porch railing broke, had conducted inspections of the property prior to the accident that resulted in an internal written report noting that the porch needed repair. In addition, plaintiffs’ architect’s affidavit opined that the “severely rotten” wooden railing was an open and obvious condition that existed for at least a year prior to the accident. Such evidence suffices to raise an issue of fact as to whether appellant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective railing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 235, 705 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maggio-v-citibank-n-a-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack