Magliore v. Severe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Magliore v. Severe

172 A.D.2d 592, 570 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4665

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

DecidedApril 8, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 592 (Magliore v. Severe) 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

Magliore v. Severe, 172 A.D.2d 592, 570 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), entered January 12, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

[593]*593We find that there are questions of fact concerning whether the window in the plaintiff’s room was "jammed” shut, whether the defendant was negligent in permitting the window to be "jammed”, and, if so, whether that condition was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Buckingham v Donarry Realty Corp., 25 AD2d 722, 722-723).

We have considered the plaintiff’s other contention and find that it is without merit (see, Morales v City of New York, 70 NY2d 981, 983-984; East Ramapo Cent. School Dist. v Orange-town-Monsey Hebrew School, 141 AD2d 693). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), entered January 12, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

[593]*593We find that there are questions of fact concerning whether the window in the plaintiff’s room was "jammed” shut, whether the defendant was negligent in permitting the window to be "jammed”, and, if so, whether that condition was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Buckingham v Donarry Realty Corp., 25 AD2d 722, 722-723).

We have considered the plaintiff’s other contention and find that it is without merit (see, Morales v City of New York, 70 NY2d 981, 983-984; East Ramapo Cent. School Dist. v Orange-town-Monsey Hebrew School, 141 AD2d 693). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 592, 570 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magliore-v-severe-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack