Salamone v. Midland Avenue Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salamone v. Midland Avenue Owners Corp.

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

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 422 (Salamone v. Midland Avenue Owners 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 422, 886 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salamone-v-midland-avenue-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack