Maldonado v. 1992 Fulton Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maldonado v. 1992 Fulton Realty Corp.

23 A.D.3d 177, 802 N.Y.S.2d 621

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 177 (Maldonado v. 1992 Fulton Realty Corp.) 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

Maldonado v. 1992 Fulton Realty Corp., 23 A.D.3d 177, 802 N.Y.S.2d 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered April 16, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if defendant landowner complied with the applicable statutes and regulations, that circumstance would not, under the facts at bar, be dispositive of whether defendant discharged its common-law duty to maintain its premises in reasonably safe condition (see Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assoc., 87 NY2d 871 [1995] ; Swerdlow v WSK Props. Corp., 5 AD3d 587 [2004]). On the present record, a factfinder could infer that plaintiff’s fall and injury were attributable to irregular, unrailed, or unlit building entry stairs. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered April 16, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if defendant landowner complied with the applicable statutes and regulations, that circumstance would not, under the facts at bar, be dispositive of whether defendant discharged its common-law duty to maintain its premises in reasonably safe condition (see Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assoc., 87 NY2d 871 [1995] ; Swerdlow v WSK Props. Corp., 5 AD3d 587 [2004]). On the present record, a factfinder could infer that plaintiff’s fall and injury were attributable to irregular, unrailed, or unlit building entry stairs. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 177, 802 N.Y.S.2d 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maldonado-v-1992-fulton-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack