Paone v. Pane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paone v. Pane

12 A.D.3d 583, 784 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14256

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 583 (Paone v. Pane) 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

Paone v. Pane, 12 A.D.3d 583, 784 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated July 3, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant met his prima facie burden of estabfishing that he was an out-of-possession landlord who was not obligated under the lease to remove snow or ice from the property and who did not retain a sufficient degree of control over the premises to provide a basis for liability (see Vijayan v Bally’s Total Fitness, 289 AD2d 224 [2001]; Carvano v Morgan, 270 AD2d 222 [2000]; Maldonado v Matera, 237 AD2d 584 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated July 3, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant met his prima facie burden of estabfishing that he was an out-of-possession landlord who was not obligated under the lease to remove snow or ice from the property and who did not retain a sufficient degree of control over the premises to provide a basis for liability (see Vijayan v Bally’s Total Fitness, 289 AD2d 224 [2001]; Carvano v Morgan, 270 AD2d 222 [2000]; Maldonado v Matera, 237 AD2d 584 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 583, 784 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paone-v-pane-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack