Melendez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melendez v. New York City Housing Authority

294 A.D.2d 243, 741 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5433

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

DecidedMay 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 243 (Melendez v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Melendez v. New York City Housing Authority, 294 A.D.2d 243, 741 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on a stairway in defendant’s premises, denied defendant’s motion to strike certain claims contained in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike so much of the bill of particulars as alleges that defendant (1) negligently hired, trained, retained and supervised others with respect to the maintenance and repair of the property, staircase, and handrail, and (2) did not provide adequate illumination in the stairway, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s notice of claim, which alleges that plaintiff slipped on the stairway in question because of an “accumulation of liquid and debris upon the surface of the steps and lack of a proper handrail,” fairly implies the statements contained in the bill of particulars with the exception of the two claims indicated above (see, White v New York City Hous. Auth., 288 AD2d 150; cf., Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445), both of which are correctly challenged as new theories first asserted in plaintiff’s bill of particulars. We modify accordingly. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on a stairway in defendant’s premises, denied defendant’s motion to strike certain claims contained in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike so much of the bill of particulars as alleges that defendant (1) negligently hired, trained, retained and supervised others with respect to the maintenance and repair of the property, staircase, and handrail, and (2) did not provide adequate illumination in the stairway, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s notice of claim, which alleges that plaintiff slipped on the stairway in question because of an “accumulation of liquid and debris upon the surface of the steps and lack of a proper handrail,” fairly implies the statements contained in the bill of particulars with the exception of the two claims indicated above (see, White v New York City Hous. Auth., 288 AD2d 150; cf., Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445), both of which are correctly challenged as new theories first asserted in plaintiff’s bill of particulars. We modify accordingly. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 243, 741 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melendez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack