Saladino v. 7th Avenue & Grove Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saladino v. 7th Avenue & Grove Street Corp.

2 A.D.3d 149, 767 N.Y.S.2d 615, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12867

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 149 (Saladino v. 7th Avenue & Grove Street 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

Saladino v. 7th Avenue & Grove Street Corp., 2 A.D.3d 149, 767 N.Y.S.2d 615, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered August 14, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion and cross motion of defendants 7th Avenue and Grove Street Corp. and Linda Libock for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross motion denied, the complaint reinstated as against the movants, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Contrary to the finding of the motion court, the deposition testimony of plaintiff and her friend, as well as the photographs of the darkened nightclub stairway on which plaintiff fell, sufficiently raise questions of fact regarding plaintiffs claim that she fell because of a “missing” step to warrant the denial of summary judgment to movants. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, 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 14, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion and cross motion of defendants 7th Avenue and Grove Street Corp. and Linda Libock for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross motion denied, the complaint reinstated as against the movants, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Contrary to the finding of the motion court, the deposition testimony of plaintiff and her friend, as well as the photographs of the darkened nightclub stairway on which plaintiff fell, sufficiently raise questions of fact regarding plaintiffs claim that she fell because of a “missing” step to warrant the denial of summary judgment to movants. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 149, 767 N.Y.S.2d 615, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saladino-v-7th-avenue-grove-street-corp-nyappdiv-2003.