Mendoza v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendoza v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 3911, 150 A.D.3d 519, 55 N.Y.S.3d 22

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

DecidedMay 16, 2017

Docket4037 20141/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3911 (Mendoza 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

Mendoza v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 3911, 150 A.D.3d 519, 55 N.Y.S.3d 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered August 15, 2016, which denied defendants the City of New York, the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

As an initial matter, plaintiffs do not challenge defendants’ contention that the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services are not proper parties to this action, and the complaint should have been dismissed as to these defendants.

We find that the City was entitled to summary judgment because it was an out-of-possession landlord that was not responsible for the repair or maintenance of the area where plaintiff Miguel Angel Mendoza’s accident occurred, and plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the area where the accident occurred constituted a structural defect (see Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered August 15, 2016, which denied defendants the City of New York, the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

As an initial matter, plaintiffs do not challenge defendants’ contention that the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services are not proper parties to this action, and the complaint should have been dismissed as to these defendants.

We find that the City was entitled to summary judgment because it was an out-of-possession landlord that was not responsible for the repair or maintenance of the area where plaintiff Miguel Angel Mendoza’s accident occurred, and plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the area where the accident occurred constituted a structural defect (see Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3911, 150 A.D.3d 519, 55 N.Y.S.3d 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack