Quinn v. Figgie International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinn v. Figgie International, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 529, 671 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4622

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 529 (Quinn v. Figgie International, 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

Quinn v. Figgie International, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 529, 671 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant County of Suffolk appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 10, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the corporate defendants based upon alleged acts of negligence “independent from those committed by the injured plaintiff and VEEB [Suffolk County Vocational Education and Extension Board] employees”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless the owner or lessor has retained control or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions (see, Baker v Getty Oil Co., 242 AD2d 644; Suarez v Skateland Presents Laces, 187 AD2d [530]*530500, 501). Here, there are triable issues of fact existing with regard to the appellant’s liability for the plaintiff Roger T. Quinn’s injuries (see, Gonzales v Shop Smart Grocery, 202 AD2d 633, 634, citing Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant County of Suffolk appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 10, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the corporate defendants based upon alleged acts of negligence “independent from those committed by the injured plaintiff and VEEB [Suffolk County Vocational Education and Extension Board] employees”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless the owner or lessor has retained control or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions (see, Baker v Getty Oil Co., 242 AD2d 644; Suarez v Skateland Presents Laces, 187 AD2d [530]*530500, 501). Here, there are triable issues of fact existing with regard to the appellant’s liability for the plaintiff Roger T. Quinn’s injuries (see, Gonzales v Shop Smart Grocery, 202 AD2d 633, 634, citing Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 529, 671 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-figgie-international-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack