Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corp.

289 A.D.2d 464, 735 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13004

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 464 (Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corp.) 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

Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corp., 289 A.D.2d 464, 735 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Silver Pasta, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated November 14, 2000, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendant Silver Pasta, Inc. (hereinafter Silver Pasta), established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the staircase where the plaintiff fell {see, [465]*465Allen v Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 AD2d 528; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the appellant had any duty to maintain the area in question. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. H. Miller, J. P., Townes, Crane and Cozier, 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 defendant Silver Pasta, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated November 14, 2000, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendant Silver Pasta, Inc. (hereinafter Silver Pasta), established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the staircase where the plaintiff fell {see, [465]*465Allen v Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 AD2d 528; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the appellant had any duty to maintain the area in question. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. H. Miller, J. P., Townes, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 464, 735 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-roman-v-fundex-capital-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack