Rizzo v. Jordan Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizzo v. Jordan Manufacturing Corp.

251 A.D.2d 394, 675 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6586

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 394 (Rizzo v. Jordan Manufacturing 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

Rizzo v. Jordan Manufacturing Corp., 251 A.D.2d 394, 675 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sam Laniado appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated May 20, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff John Rizzo fell on a loading dock allegedly due to a dangerous condition which existed on the dock. The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that each of the defendants either owned, leased, or controlled the property in question and were responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff John Rizzo. The appellant, an officer of the defendant HJLS Enterprises, Inc., moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him claiming that he is not individually liable to the plaintiffs because he did not individually own, lease, or control the property in question.

There are questions of fact as to whether the appellant [395]*395individually owned, leased, or controlled the property in question. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Mc-Ginity, 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 Sam Laniado appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated May 20, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff John Rizzo fell on a loading dock allegedly due to a dangerous condition which existed on the dock. The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that each of the defendants either owned, leased, or controlled the property in question and were responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff John Rizzo. The appellant, an officer of the defendant HJLS Enterprises, Inc., moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him claiming that he is not individually liable to the plaintiffs because he did not individually own, lease, or control the property in question.

There are questions of fact as to whether the appellant [395]*395individually owned, leased, or controlled the property in question. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 394, 675 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzo-v-jordan-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack