Qevani v. 1957 Bronxdale Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Qevani v. 1957 Bronxdale Corp.

232 A.D.2d 284, 649 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10514

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 284 (Qevani v. 1957 Bronxdale Corp.) 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

Qevani v. 1957 Bronxdale Corp., 232 A.D.2d 284, 649 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about September 8, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly concluded that issues of fact exist as to whether the wet condition of the staircase existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident so as to permit defendant to discover and remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). The evidence could support an inference that the defective condition existed for 90 minutes or more. Given that defendant employed two building maintenance people at the time, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that 90 minutes was an insufficient period of time to allow for the correction of a defect that was visible and apparent (compare, e.g., Fischer v Battery Bldg. Maintenance Co., 135 AD2d 378, 380).

Finally, we note that we are not persuaded by defendant’s unsupported contention that it should be subject to a lesser standard of care because it is a residential, as opposed to a commercial, landlord. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about September 8, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly concluded that issues of fact exist as to whether the wet condition of the staircase existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident so as to permit defendant to discover and remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). The evidence could support an inference that the defective condition existed for 90 minutes or more. Given that defendant employed two building maintenance people at the time, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that 90 minutes was an insufficient period of time to allow for the correction of a defect that was visible and apparent (compare, e.g., Fischer v Battery Bldg. Maintenance Co., 135 AD2d 378, 380).

Finally, we note that we are not persuaded by defendant’s unsupported contention that it should be subject to a lesser standard of care because it is a residential, as opposed to a commercial, landlord. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 284, 649 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qevani-v-1957-bronxdale-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack