Pelaez v. Seide

49 A.D.3d 618, 852 N.Y.2d 800

This text of 49 A.D.3d 618 (Pelaez v. Seide) 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
Pelaez v. Seide, 49 A.D.3d 618, 852 N.Y.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them because they failed to tender evidence sufficient to entitle them to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Questions of fact exist as to whether the appellants owned or controlled the subject property during the time when [619]*619the infant plaintiffs sustained their injuries (see Ellers v Horwitz Family Ltd. Partnership, 36 AD3d 849 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Ellers v. Horwitz Family Ltd. Partnership
36 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 618, 852 N.Y.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelaez-v-seide-nyappdiv-2008.