Russell v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. New York City Housing Authority

194 A.D.2d 505, 599 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774

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

DecidedJune 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 505 (Russell 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

Russell v. New York City Housing Authority, 194 A.D.2d 505, 599 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered April 16, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of defendant’s conceded ownership, management [506]*506and operation of the instant premises, it appears that defendant constructed or created the instant walking ramp as part of the apartment building, or had said ramp constructed for access to and from the building. Accordingly, defendant is charged with actual notice of the alleged defective design and/ or construction of the ramp (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249, affd 64 NY2d 670). At the very least, questions of fact exist as to who is responsible for the creation and/or design of the ramp. In addition, in light of the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, plaintiff has sufficiently raised questions of fact regarding the propriety of the pitch of the ramp and the unavailability of handrails. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Nardelli, 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 April 16, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of defendant’s conceded ownership, management [506]*506and operation of the instant premises, it appears that defendant constructed or created the instant walking ramp as part of the apartment building, or had said ramp constructed for access to and from the building. Accordingly, defendant is charged with actual notice of the alleged defective design and/ or construction of the ramp (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249, affd 64 NY2d 670). At the very least, questions of fact exist as to who is responsible for the creation and/or design of the ramp. In addition, in light of the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, plaintiff has sufficiently raised questions of fact regarding the propriety of the pitch of the ramp and the unavailability of handrails. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 505, 599 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack