Redfern v. 1552-75-82 President Street Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Redfern v. 1552-75-82 President Street Realty Corp.

296 A.D.2d 391, 745 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7035

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 391 (Redfern v. 1552-75-82 President Street Realty 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

Redfern v. 1552-75-82 President Street Realty Corp., 296 A.D.2d 391, 745 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an [392]*392action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 17, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when the glass plate cover from the light fixture on his bedroom ceiling fell on his head. The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court denied the motion.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant may be liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as the plaintiff failed to establish that the light fixture was in the defendant’s exclusive control (see Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489).

However, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, since the plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts, submitted by the defendant in support of the motion, raised an issue of fact as to whether the building superintendent created the allegedly defective condition by removing and replacing the light fixture prior to the date of the accident (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an [392]*392action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 17, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when the glass plate cover from the light fixture on his bedroom ceiling fell on his head. The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court denied the motion.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant may be liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as the plaintiff failed to establish that the light fixture was in the defendant’s exclusive control (see Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489).

However, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, since the plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts, submitted by the defendant in support of the motion, raised an issue of fact as to whether the building superintendent created the allegedly defective condition by removing and replacing the light fixture prior to the date of the accident (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 391, 745 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redfern-v-1552-75-82-president-street-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack