Ostuni v. East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ostuni v. East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc.

238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4419

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 558 (Ostuni v. East Rockaway Village Tavern, 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

Ostuni v. East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc., s/h/a East River Tavern, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated June 25, 1996, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

While the plaintiff Paschal Ostuni was ascending a staircase from the basement level to the first floor of the East Rockaway Village Tavern, the staircase collapsed, causing Ostuni to fall and to sustain severe injuries.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc., sued herein as East River Tavern, Inc. (hereinafter the Tavern), for summary judgment since it failed to initially show, as a matter of law, that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition (see, Padula v Big V Supermarkets, 173 AD2d 1094, 1095; Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294, 294-295; see also, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Giacomontonio v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, 224 AD2d 580). Furthermore, there exist triable issues of fact as to whether the Tavern had exclusive control of the instrumentality in question and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable (see, e.g., Finocchio v Crest Hollow Club, 184 AD2d 491).

The claim by the plaintiffs that the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the defendant Robert Edelman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is not properly before this Court for review since the plaintiffs did not cross-appeal. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, 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 East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc., s/h/a East River Tavern, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated June 25, 1996, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

While the plaintiff Paschal Ostuni was ascending a staircase from the basement level to the first floor of the East Rockaway Village Tavern, the staircase collapsed, causing Ostuni to fall and to sustain severe injuries.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant East Rockaway Village Tavern, Inc., sued herein as East River Tavern, Inc. (hereinafter the Tavern), for summary judgment since it failed to initially show, as a matter of law, that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition (see, Padula v Big V Supermarkets, 173 AD2d 1094, 1095; Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294, 294-295; see also, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Giacomontonio v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, 224 AD2d 580). Furthermore, there exist triable issues of fact as to whether the Tavern had exclusive control of the instrumentality in question and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable (see, e.g., Finocchio v Crest Hollow Club, 184 AD2d 491).

The claim by the plaintiffs that the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the defendant Robert Edelman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is not properly before this Court for review since the plaintiffs did not cross-appeal. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostuni-v-east-rockaway-village-tavern-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack