Muirhead v. ZCWK Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muirhead v. ZCWK Associates, L.P.

255 A.D.2d 110, 679 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11646

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 110 (Muirhead v. ZCWK Associates, L.P.) 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

Muirhead v. ZCWK Associates, L.P., 255 A.D.2d 110, 679 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1998, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall, inter alia, denied defendant building owner’s and managing agent’s motion, and defendant building maintenance contractor’s cross motion, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Questions of fact exist as to whether the stairway on which plaintiff slipped had become dangerously slippery with ice or slush; if so, whether defendants had constructive notice of such condition on this heavily trafficked stairway; and, if so, whether defendants used reasonable care to remedy such condition (cf., Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 NY 107, 108; see, Megally v 440 W. [111]*11134th St. Co., 246 AD2d 346; O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106).

We have reviewed appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1998, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall, inter alia, denied defendant building owner’s and managing agent’s motion, and defendant building maintenance contractor’s cross motion, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Questions of fact exist as to whether the stairway on which plaintiff slipped had become dangerously slippery with ice or slush; if so, whether defendants had constructive notice of such condition on this heavily trafficked stairway; and, if so, whether defendants used reasonable care to remedy such condition (cf., Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 NY 107, 108; see, Megally v 440 W. [111]*11134th St. Co., 246 AD2d 346; O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106).

We have reviewed appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 110, 679 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muirhead-v-zcwk-associates-lp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack