Munoz v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

198 A.D.2d 145, 603 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 145 (Munoz v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.) 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

Munoz v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 145, 603 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Car[146]*146men Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered, on or about July 1, 1993, which denied third-party defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Unresolved questions concerning the specific surface and/or object which allegedly precipitated plaintiffs fall and injury, and whether third-party defendant could have caused or contributed to the alleged mishap, preclude a grant of summary judgment. That third-party defendant’s paving work was deemed satisfactory by an inspector nine months prior to the accident does not eliminate the possibility that a latent defect may have caused the accident (see, Sternbach v Cornell Univ., 162 AD2d 922). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Car[146]*146men Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered, on or about July 1, 1993, which denied third-party defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Unresolved questions concerning the specific surface and/or object which allegedly precipitated plaintiffs fall and injury, and whether third-party defendant could have caused or contributed to the alleged mishap, preclude a grant of summary judgment. That third-party defendant’s paving work was deemed satisfactory by an inspector nine months prior to the accident does not eliminate the possibility that a latent defect may have caused the accident (see, Sternbach v Cornell Univ., 162 AD2d 922). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 145, 603 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack