Morrison v. Gerlitzky

282 A.D.2d 725, 724 N.Y.S.2d 73, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4223
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 725 (Morrison v. Gerlitzky) 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
Morrison v. Gerlitzky, 282 A.D.2d 725, 724 N.Y.S.2d 73, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated April 25, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Abraham Gerlitzky for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon a defendant’s ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property (see, Golds v Del Aguila, 259 AD2d 942; Allen v Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 AD2d 528; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278). The respondent established that, as a tenant of the building owned by the defendants Benjamin Levitin and Shirley Levitin (hereinafter the Levitins), he used the exterior steps where the alleged accident occurred in common with the Levitins. In addition, he established that he had no contractual obligation to maintain the common areas. In opposition to the respondent’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff produced no evidence that the respondent created the alleged dangerous condition or made special use of the exterior steps. Thus, the respondent may not be held liable for failing to correct the alleged dangerous condition (see, White v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 262 AD2d 636; Golds v Del Aguila, supra; Welwood v Association for Children With Down Syndrome, 248 AD2d 707; Millman v Citibank, supra). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Paduano v. 686 Forest Avenue, LLC
119 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kubicsko v. Westchester County Electric, Inc.
116 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
DeCourcey v. Briarcliff Congregational Church
104 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Servo v. Bank of New York
96 A.D.3d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Bennett v. Weber Job Lot Corp.
93 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cerrato v. Rapistan Demag Corp.
84 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Sanchez v. 1710 Broadway, Inc.
79 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cortez v. Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC
78 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gover v. Mastic Beach Property Owners Ass'n
57 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sparozic v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.
50 A.D.3d 1121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Quarless v. Dengler
48 A.D.3d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Ross v. Lyndhurst
290 A.D.2d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Tomback v. Kew Gardens Ass'n
290 A.D.2d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Hilliard v. Roc-Newark Associates
287 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 725, 724 N.Y.S.2d 73, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-gerlitzky-nyappdiv-2001.