Oken v. Sisters of Mercy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oken v. Sisters of Mercy, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 293, 715 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11684

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 293 (Oken v. Sisters of Mercy, 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

Oken v. Sisters of Mercy, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 293, 715 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated December 16, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. There is a question of fact as to whether the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; Oritz v RVC Realty Co., 253 AD2d 802, 803; Felder v Wank, 227 AD2d 442; Bettis v County of Nassau, 212 AD2d 749). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated December 16, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. There is a question of fact as to whether the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; Oritz v RVC Realty Co., 253 AD2d 802, 803; Felder v Wank, 227 AD2d 442; Bettis v County of Nassau, 212 AD2d 749). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 293, 715 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oken-v-sisters-of-mercy-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack