Perry v. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perry v. v. New York City Housing Authority

116 A.D.3d 511, 984 N.Y.S.2d 29

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

DecidedApril 10, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 511 (Perry v. v. New York City Housing Authority) 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. v. New York City Housing Authority, 116 A.D.3d 511, 984 N.Y.S.2d 29 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered January 14, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to strike certain allegations in plaintiffs bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this slip and fall action, plaintiffs notice of claim alleging that the stairway on which he fell was, among other things, slippery, uneven, worn, broken, and cracked, “fairly implie[s]” the more specific allegations set forth in the bill of particulars concerning, among other things, the uneven heights and widths of the risers and treads, and the slippery, worn paint covering the steps (see Dones v New York City Hous. Auth., 81 AD3d 554, 554 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s allegations that these conditions violated regulations and statutes do not assert a distinct or independent theory of liability. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered January 14, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to strike certain allegations in plaintiffs bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this slip and fall action, plaintiffs notice of claim alleging that the stairway on which he fell was, among other things, slippery, uneven, worn, broken, and cracked, “fairly implie[s]” the more specific allegations set forth in the bill of particulars concerning, among other things, the uneven heights and widths of the risers and treads, and the slippery, worn paint covering the steps (see Dones v New York City Hous. Auth., 81 AD3d 554, 554 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s allegations that these conditions violated regulations and statutes do not assert a distinct or independent theory of liability. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 511, 984 N.Y.S.2d 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack