Morrissey v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrissey v. Riverbay Corp.

222 A.D.2d 234, 635 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12715

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 234 (Morrissey v. Riverbay Corp.) 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

Morrissey v. Riverbay Corp., 222 A.D.2d 234, 635 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered June 21, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Questions of fact remain as to whether there was a sufficient history of criminal activity that would have made the assault on plaintiff foreseeable, based on plaintiff’s sworn assertion that violent incidents had occurred near the site of the assault in recent years and on defendant’s security complaint reports concerning crimes that had occurred elsewhere in this housing complex. Factual issues also exist as to whether defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that lamps along the pathway where the assault occurred were out of order and, if so, whether the assault would have occurred had there been functioning lighting (Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 211 AD2d 328, 332-333). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered June 21, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Questions of fact remain as to whether there was a sufficient history of criminal activity that would have made the assault on plaintiff foreseeable, based on plaintiff’s sworn assertion that violent incidents had occurred near the site of the assault in recent years and on defendant’s security complaint reports concerning crimes that had occurred elsewhere in this housing complex. Factual issues also exist as to whether defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that lamps along the pathway where the assault occurred were out of order and, if so, whether the assault would have occurred had there been functioning lighting (Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 211 AD2d 328, 332-333). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 234, 635 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrissey-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack