Powell v. Hope Community, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powell v. Hope Community, Inc.

280 A.D.2d 327, 720 N.Y.S.2d 147, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1341

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 327 (Powell v. Hope Community, 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

Powell v. Hope Community, Inc., 280 A.D.2d 327, 720 N.Y.S.2d 147, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered June 28, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal following the conduct of further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in light of the affidavit of plaintiffs expert, which raised material issues of fact [328]*328as to whether defendant created the stairway defect alleged by plaintiff to have caused his injury. The evidence submitted on the motion indicates that, although the subject building was constructed prior to the enactment of the Building Code, subsequent alterations and repairs of the building, including the reconstruction of the staircase at issue, brought the building within the Code’s coverage (cf., Lester v Waterman, 242 AD2d 683), and “[o]rdinarily, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiffs injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants” (see, Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 972). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered June 28, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal following the conduct of further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in light of the affidavit of plaintiffs expert, which raised material issues of fact [328]*328as to whether defendant created the stairway defect alleged by plaintiff to have caused his injury. The evidence submitted on the motion indicates that, although the subject building was constructed prior to the enactment of the Building Code, subsequent alterations and repairs of the building, including the reconstruction of the staircase at issue, brought the building within the Code’s coverage (cf., Lester v Waterman, 242 AD2d 683), and “[o]rdinarily, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiffs injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants” (see, Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 972). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 327, 720 N.Y.S.2d 147, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-hope-community-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack