Medina v. Alpine Waste Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. Alpine Waste Co.

266 A.D.2d 518, 698 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12284

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 518 (Medina v. Alpine Waste Co.) 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

Medina v. Alpine Waste Co., 266 A.D.2d 518, 698 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Alpine Waste Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which, upon reargument, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, which motion had been granted by order of the same court, dated November 19, 1997, and reinstated the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by reinstating the complaint (see, Canzoneri v Wigand Corp., 168 AD2d 593). Further, factual questions exist regarding whether or not the defendant Alpine Waste Company owned the metal container in issue or created the dangerous condition that injured the plaintiff Luis Medina (see, Ugarizza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471; Maguire v Southland Corp., 245 AD2d 347). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Alpine Waste Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which, upon reargument, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, which motion had been granted by order of the same court, dated November 19, 1997, and reinstated the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by reinstating the complaint (see, Canzoneri v Wigand Corp., 168 AD2d 593). Further, factual questions exist regarding whether or not the defendant Alpine Waste Company owned the metal container in issue or created the dangerous condition that injured the plaintiff Luis Medina (see, Ugarizza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471; Maguire v Southland Corp., 245 AD2d 347). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 518, 698 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-alpine-waste-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack