Mangieri v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mangieri v. City of New York

256 A.D.2d 153, 681 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13707

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 153 (Mangieri v. City of New York) 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

Mangieri v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 153, 681 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered October 23, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by defendant-appellant’s brief, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant-appellant’s argument, it owed plaintiff a duty of care since, pursuant to its agreement with defendant City of New York, defendant-appellant was solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the subject golf course and plaintiff, as a golfing patron upon that course, was reasonably within the class of individuals entitled, and, indeed, compelled to rely upon defendant-appellant’s satisfactory performance of its exclusive maintenance undertaking (see, Palka v Service-master Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579, 584-590). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered October 23, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by defendant-appellant’s brief, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant-appellant’s argument, it owed plaintiff a duty of care since, pursuant to its agreement with defendant City of New York, defendant-appellant was solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the subject golf course and plaintiff, as a golfing patron upon that course, was reasonably within the class of individuals entitled, and, indeed, compelled to rely upon defendant-appellant’s satisfactory performance of its exclusive maintenance undertaking (see, Palka v Service-master Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579, 584-590). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 153, 681 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangieri-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack