Ober v. Rye Town Hilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ober v. Rye Town Hilton

216 A.D.2d 374, 628 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6269

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

DecidedJune 12, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 374 (Ober v. Rye Town Hilton) 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

Ober v. Rye Town Hilton, 216 A.D.2d 374, 628 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 8, 1993, which granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denied their cross motion for further discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the alleged defect in an armored telephone cord on a public pay telephone at a telephone bank in the respondent’s hotel existed for a sufficient length of time that knowledge thereof could have been acquired by the respondent in the exercise of reasonable care (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel further discovery (see, CPLR 3212; Lewis v I.K.E. Realty Assocs., 81 AD2d 711, 712). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 8, 1993, which granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denied their cross motion for further discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the alleged defect in an armored telephone cord on a public pay telephone at a telephone bank in the respondent’s hotel existed for a sufficient length of time that knowledge thereof could have been acquired by the respondent in the exercise of reasonable care (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel further discovery (see, CPLR 3212; Lewis v I.K.E. Realty Assocs., 81 AD2d 711, 712). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 374, 628 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ober-v-rye-town-hilton-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack