Mincey v. Mensch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mincey v. Mensch

253 A.D.2d 656, 677 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9480

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 656 (Mincey v. Mensch) 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

Mincey v. Mensch, 253 A.D.2d 656, 677 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered January 29, 1998, which denied the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the defect in the corner curb where plaintiff fell was caused by cars driving over the curb in the course of entering and exiting the vacant lot (used as a parking lot) that lay between the curb and defendants’ buildings (see, Montalvo v Western Estates, 240 AD2d 45). That [657]*657plaintiff did not trip over the part of the curb that was cut to provide entrance to the lot, but rather over the part located at the corner some distance away from the curb cut, does not eliminate the possibility, at this early stage of the action, that the individual defendants’ alleged special use of the sidewalk produced a proximate cause of the fall. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered January 29, 1998, which denied the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the defect in the corner curb where plaintiff fell was caused by cars driving over the curb in the course of entering and exiting the vacant lot (used as a parking lot) that lay between the curb and defendants’ buildings (see, Montalvo v Western Estates, 240 AD2d 45). That [657]*657plaintiff did not trip over the part of the curb that was cut to provide entrance to the lot, but rather over the part located at the corner some distance away from the curb cut, does not eliminate the possibility, at this early stage of the action, that the individual defendants’ alleged special use of the sidewalk produced a proximate cause of the fall. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 656, 677 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mincey-v-mensch-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack