Perry v. Millio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perry v. Millio

245 A.D.2d 358, 667 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12804

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 358 (Perry v. Millio) 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

Perry v. Millio, 245 A.D.2d 358, 667 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered November 13, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

After starting to fty some chicken in the kitchen of her apartment, the plaintiff went into her living room and fell asleep. When she awoke a while later, she smelled smoke. Rushing to the kitchen, the plaintiff snatched the smoking skillet off of the stove, splattering herself with hot oil. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued her landlords, alleging that they were responsible for her injuries because they had failed to maintain her smoke alarm in proper working order.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. A landlord is not liable for his tenant’s injuries where, as here, there is no causal connection between his purported negligence and the plaintiff’s accident (see, e.g., Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819; Laureano v Louzoun, 165 AD2d 866; Gonzalez v Pius, 138 AD2d 453; see also, Kleckley v Trump Mgt., 237 AD2d 411). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered November 13, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

After starting to fty some chicken in the kitchen of her apartment, the plaintiff went into her living room and fell asleep. When she awoke a while later, she smelled smoke. Rushing to the kitchen, the plaintiff snatched the smoking skillet off of the stove, splattering herself with hot oil. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued her landlords, alleging that they were responsible for her injuries because they had failed to maintain her smoke alarm in proper working order.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. A landlord is not liable for his tenant’s injuries where, as here, there is no causal connection between his purported negligence and the plaintiff’s accident (see, e.g., Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819; Laureano v Louzoun, 165 AD2d 866; Gonzalez v Pius, 138 AD2d 453; see also, Kleckley v Trump Mgt., 237 AD2d 411). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 358, 667 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-millio-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack