Pizzurro v. Kranzco Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pizzurro v. Kranzco Realty, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 4, 732 N.Y.S.2d 10, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10201

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 4 (Pizzurro v. Kranzco Realty, Inc.) 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

Pizzurro v. Kranzco Realty, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 4, 732 N.Y.S.2d 10, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged hole in the curb separating the walkway of defendant’s mall from its parking lot constituted a tripping hazard. Such issue is raised by evidence, including the affidavit of an engineer, that the dimensions of the hole, painted over in a manner that made it difficult to detect and located in a poorly lit area where people would be looking straight ahead into the parking lot for their car, created a hazard (see, Argenio v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 277 AD2d 165). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged hole in the curb separating the walkway of defendant’s mall from its parking lot constituted a tripping hazard. Such issue is raised by evidence, including the affidavit of an engineer, that the dimensions of the hole, painted over in a manner that made it difficult to detect and located in a poorly lit area where people would be looking straight ahead into the parking lot for their car, created a hazard (see, Argenio v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 277 AD2d 165). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 4, 732 N.Y.S.2d 10, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pizzurro-v-kranzco-realty-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack