Rosales v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosales v. New York City Housing Authority

250 A.D.2d 554, 671 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134

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

DecidedMay 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 554 (Rosales v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Rosales v. New York City Housing Authority, 250 A.D.2d 554, 671 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme [555]*555Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 6, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The testimony of defendant’s employee, acknowledging that the sidewalk area had been hosed down in the past in order to remove residual liquid substances leaking out of the trash bags defendant placed on the sidewalk, indicated that defendant knew that the trash bags could result in a slippery sidewalk, and raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall (see, Montalvo v Western Estates, 240 AD2d 45, 48). That plaintiff could not specify the item(s) on which she slipped is not determinative (supra). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme [555]*555Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 6, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The testimony of defendant’s employee, acknowledging that the sidewalk area had been hosed down in the past in order to remove residual liquid substances leaking out of the trash bags defendant placed on the sidewalk, indicated that defendant knew that the trash bags could result in a slippery sidewalk, and raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall (see, Montalvo v Western Estates, 240 AD2d 45, 48). That plaintiff could not specify the item(s) on which she slipped is not determinative (supra). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 554, 671 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosales-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack