Miller v. Henry Modell & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Henry Modell & Co.

180 A.D.2d 783, 581 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2829

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 783 (Miller v. Henry Modell & 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

Miller v. Henry Modell & Co., 180 A.D.2d 783, 581 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated January 30, 1990, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that the evidence before it on the motion for summary judgment, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents factual issues as to whether the alleged defect on the staircase in the defendant’s department store was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Farrar v Teicholz, 173 AD2d 674), and whether the condition existed over such a length of time that the defendant should be charged with constructive notice (see, Ferlito v Great S. Bay Assocs., 140 AD2d 408, 409; Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 NY2d 903). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated January 30, 1990, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that the evidence before it on the motion for summary judgment, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents factual issues as to whether the alleged defect on the staircase in the defendant’s department store was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Farrar v Teicholz, 173 AD2d 674), and whether the condition existed over such a length of time that the defendant should be charged with constructive notice (see, Ferlito v Great S. Bay Assocs., 140 AD2d 408, 409; Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 NY2d 903). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 783, 581 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-henry-modell-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack