Pipersberg v. Dome Property Management

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pipersberg v. Dome Property Management

273 A.D.2d 82, 710 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6588

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

DecidedJune 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 82 (Pipersberg v. Dome Property Management) 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

Pipersberg v. Dome Property Management, 273 A.D.2d 82, 710 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered June 22, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted since plaintiff, in response to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant property management company was responsible for the maintenance of the premises at which plaintiff allegedly sustained her injury.

We have examined plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered June 22, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted since plaintiff, in response to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant property management company was responsible for the maintenance of the premises at which plaintiff allegedly sustained her injury.

We have examined plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 82, 710 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipersberg-v-dome-property-management-nyappdiv-2000.