Sato v. Ippudo NY

New York Court of Appeals

Sato v. Ippudo NY

996 N.E.2d 910, 21 N.Y.3d 1059

DecidedSeptember 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 996 N.E.2d 910 (Sato v. Ippudo NY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sato v. Ippudo NY, 996 N.E.2d 910, 21 N.Y.3d 1059 (N.Y. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendants’ alleged negligence in failing to provide adequate warning of the presence of the staircase or adequate lighting in the staircase and surrounding area caused his fall.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendants’ alleged negligence in failing to provide adequate warning of the presence of the staircase or adequate lighting in the staircase and surrounding area caused his fall.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

996 N.E.2d 910, 21 N.Y.3d 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sato-v-ippudo-ny-ny-2013.