Salamone v. Midland Avenue Owners Corp.

66 A.D.2d 422, 886 N.Y.S.2d 391

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered August 21, 2008, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The conflicting testimony of plaintiffs and defendants-appellants’ building manager and the certified weather reports from weather stations in the areas around Yonkers, where the accidént occurred, raise an issue of fact whether there was a “storm in progress” in Yonkers at the time of the accident (see Krause v City of New York, 152 AD2d 473 [1989], lv denied 76 NY2d 714 [1990]).

We have considered defendants-appellants’ argument as to the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit and find it unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

Salamone v. Midland Avenue Owners Corp., 66 A.D.2d 422, 886 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

66 A.D.2d 422 (Salamone v. Midland Avenue Owners Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Krause v. City of New York
152 A.D.2d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)