Olic v. Alliance Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olic v. Alliance Holdings, Inc.

273 A.D.2d 109, 710 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 109 (Olic v. Alliance Holdings, 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

Olic v. Alliance Holdings, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 109, 710 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied where questions of fact remain as to whether defendant-appellant through its agents had notice, actual or constructive, of the allegedly dangerous condition in the basement of its building that led to the flood, which precipitated plaintiff Frane Olic’s injuries. There are also questions of fact as to whether, if defendant had such notice, its failure to rectify the condition breached its obligation to maintain its premises in a safe condition (see, Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assocs., 87 NY2d 871), or violated any applicable statutory requirements. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied where questions of fact remain as to whether defendant-appellant through its agents had notice, actual or constructive, of the allegedly dangerous condition in the basement of its building that led to the flood, which precipitated plaintiff Frane Olic’s injuries. There are also questions of fact as to whether, if defendant had such notice, its failure to rectify the condition breached its obligation to maintain its premises in a safe condition (see, Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assocs., 87 NY2d 871), or violated any applicable statutory requirements. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 109, 710 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olic-v-alliance-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack