Melendez v. Reichwald-Hiranandani Living Trust

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melendez v. Reichwald-Hiranandani Living Trust

84 A.D.3d 646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 837

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

DecidedMay 26, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.3d 646 (Melendez v. Reichwald-Hiranandani Living Trust) 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. Reichwald-Hiranandani Living Trust, 84 A.D.3d 646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered June 11, 2010, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as a deed, to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact as to the ownership of the building. Indeed, the property management agreement and the testimony of the president of Friedman Management Corp. appear to contradict defendants’ claim that the Living Trust is the sole owner. Defendants also failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as the testimony of an individual with personal knowledge of ice and snow removal operations on the day of plaintiff’s accident, to demonstrate that they neither created nor had notice of the allegedly hazardous condition on the building steps. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Mazzarelli, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered June 11, 2010, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as a deed, to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact as to the ownership of the building. Indeed, the property management agreement and the testimony of the president of Friedman Management Corp. appear to contradict defendants’ claim that the Living Trust is the sole owner. Defendants also failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as the testimony of an individual with personal knowledge of ice and snow removal operations on the day of plaintiff’s accident, to demonstrate that they neither created nor had notice of the allegedly hazardous condition on the building steps. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Mazzarelli, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melendez-v-reichwald-hiranandani-living-trust-nyappdiv-2011.