Rufino v. Colella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rufino v. Colella

215 A.D.2d 223, 626 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 223 (Rufino v. Colella) 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

Rufino v. Colella, 215 A.D.2d 223, 626 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered August 18, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion by the defendant for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action brought to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she fell on a sidewalk, the IAS Court properly determined that summary judgment in defendant’s favor was precluded by triable issues of fact as to, inter alia, the extent of the defendant’s maintenance of the sidewalk area where the plaintiff was allegedly injured and whether the defendant created the defect in the sidewalk which caused the accident (see, Brady v Maloney, 161 AD2d 879).

Defendant testified at her deposition that it was her responsibility to keep the sidewalk in good condition, that she did [224]*224not "remember” whether she had ever made repairs to the sidewalk prior to the accident, acknowledged that the area where the plaintiff had fallen had been repaired after the accident, and denied, in conclusory fashion, plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff had repeatedly complained to the defendant several times in the years prior to the accident about a defective condition of the sidewalk abutting the defendant’s property where the accident occurred.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered August 18, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion by the defendant for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action brought to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she fell on a sidewalk, the IAS Court properly determined that summary judgment in defendant’s favor was precluded by triable issues of fact as to, inter alia, the extent of the defendant’s maintenance of the sidewalk area where the plaintiff was allegedly injured and whether the defendant created the defect in the sidewalk which caused the accident (see, Brady v Maloney, 161 AD2d 879).

Defendant testified at her deposition that it was her responsibility to keep the sidewalk in good condition, that she did [224]*224not "remember” whether she had ever made repairs to the sidewalk prior to the accident, acknowledged that the area where the plaintiff had fallen had been repaired after the accident, and denied, in conclusory fashion, plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff had repeatedly complained to the defendant several times in the years prior to the accident about a defective condition of the sidewalk abutting the defendant’s property where the accident occurred.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 223, 626 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rufino-v-colella-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack