Norman v. Dunbar Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norman v. Dunbar Partners

292 A.D.2d 275, 739 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3038

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 275 (Norman v. Dunbar Partners) 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

Norman v. Dunbar Partners, 292 A.D.2d 275, 739 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell over an uncovered drain on a walkway in a housing complex owned by defendant, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the allegedly uncovered hole on its property is raised by the affidavit and deposition testimony of plaintiff’s witness, a resident of the complex, that some four year prior to the accident she began to notice that the grating cover for this particular drain was at [276]*276times halfway or entirely off, and that she complained about it to defendant four or five times, the last being about a year prior to the accident before she moved into another building in the complex. The testimony of defendant’s witness, an employee of its managing agent, that during the 18 months he worked at the complex prior to the accident he never saw a missing drain cover on his daily walk on the path where the subject drain is located, simply raises an issue of fact. Defendant offers no evidence of actual repairs. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell over an uncovered drain on a walkway in a housing complex owned by defendant, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the allegedly uncovered hole on its property is raised by the affidavit and deposition testimony of plaintiff’s witness, a resident of the complex, that some four year prior to the accident she began to notice that the grating cover for this particular drain was at [276]*276times halfway or entirely off, and that she complained about it to defendant four or five times, the last being about a year prior to the accident before she moved into another building in the complex. The testimony of defendant’s witness, an employee of its managing agent, that during the 18 months he worked at the complex prior to the accident he never saw a missing drain cover on his daily walk on the path where the subject drain is located, simply raises an issue of fact. Defendant offers no evidence of actual repairs. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 275, 739 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-dunbar-partners-nyappdiv-2002.