Moore v. 158 Street Riverside Drive Housing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. 158 Street Riverside Drive Housing Co.

59 A.D.3d 245, 873 N.Y.S.2d 569

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 245 (Moore v. 158 Street Riverside Drive Housing 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

Moore v. 158 Street Riverside Drive Housing Co., 59 A.D.3d 245, 873 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2007, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant/third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for common-law negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs claim for common-law negligence. In support of summary judgment, defendant asserted that it had no duty to plaintiff, citing the occupancy agreement for the cooperative unit, which placed the duty to maintain and repair the light fixtures on the unit owner, not on defendant, the owner of the building. Plaintiff, an employee of the lessee of the unit, third-party defendant Edwin Gould Services for Children, who was injured when she attempted to change a light bulb, failed to offer any evidence to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the record shows that defendant sought dismissal of plaintiff’s entire complaint in the main body of its moving papers, not for the first time in its reply papers. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Gonzalez, Buckley and Renwick, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32501(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2007, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant/third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for common-law negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs claim for common-law negligence. In support of summary judgment, defendant asserted that it had no duty to plaintiff, citing the occupancy agreement for the cooperative unit, which placed the duty to maintain and repair the light fixtures on the unit owner, not on defendant, the owner of the building. Plaintiff, an employee of the lessee of the unit, third-party defendant Edwin Gould Services for Children, who was injured when she attempted to change a light bulb, failed to offer any evidence to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the record shows that defendant sought dismissal of plaintiff’s entire complaint in the main body of its moving papers, not for the first time in its reply papers. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Gonzalez, Buckley and Renwick, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32501(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 245, 873 N.Y.S.2d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-158-street-riverside-drive-housing-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack