Moore v. Eyzenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Eyzenberg

270 A.D.2d 468, 705 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3213

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 468 (Moore v. Eyzenberg) 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. Eyzenberg, 270 A.D.2d 468, 705 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 26, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under General Municipal Law § 205-a, liability is imposed in any case where there is a practical or reasonable connection between a statutory or code violation and the injury to the plaintiff (see, Brasca v Jessup, 258 AD2d 490; O’Connell v Kavanagh, 231 AD2d 29; Schwarzrock v Thurcon Dev. Co., 193 AD2d 357). In the case at bar, there remain issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the alleged violations included the hole that the injured plaintiff fell through. In addition, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground of spoliation of evidence (see, Popfinger v Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 AD2d 564). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Smith, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 26, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under General Municipal Law § 205-a, liability is imposed in any case where there is a practical or reasonable connection between a statutory or code violation and the injury to the plaintiff (see, Brasca v Jessup, 258 AD2d 490; O’Connell v Kavanagh, 231 AD2d 29; Schwarzrock v Thurcon Dev. Co., 193 AD2d 357). In the case at bar, there remain issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the alleged violations included the hole that the injured plaintiff fell through. In addition, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground of spoliation of evidence (see, Popfinger v Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 AD2d 564). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 468, 705 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-eyzenberg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack