Santiago v. Gartenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Gartenberg

178 A.D.2d 640, 578 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16914

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 640 (Santiago v. Gartenberg) 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

Santiago v. Gartenberg, 178 A.D.2d 640, 578 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 25, 1990, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell on snow and ice in [641]*641front of the entrance to a factory leased by the defendant to a third party. The terms of the lease required the tenant to keep the premises free of snow. The plaintiff contends that the defendant retained sufficient control of the premises to be held liable for her injuries. Under the facts of this case, we find no basis for imposing liability on the defendant, who was not in possession of the property at the time of the accident (see, Brooks v Dupont Assocs., 164 AD2d 847; Lynch v Lom-Sur Co., 161 AD2d 885; Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Consequently, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 25, 1990, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell on snow and ice in [641]*641front of the entrance to a factory leased by the defendant to a third party. The terms of the lease required the tenant to keep the premises free of snow. The plaintiff contends that the defendant retained sufficient control of the premises to be held liable for her injuries. Under the facts of this case, we find no basis for imposing liability on the defendant, who was not in possession of the property at the time of the accident (see, Brooks v Dupont Assocs., 164 AD2d 847; Lynch v Lom-Sur Co., 161 AD2d 885; Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Consequently, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 640, 578 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-gartenberg-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack