Saxton v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saxton v. City of New York

29 A.D.3d 981, 815 N.Y.S.2d 483

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

DecidedMay 30, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 981 (Saxton v. City of New York) 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

Saxton v. City of New York, 29 A.D.3d 981, 815 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant H.H.M. Associates, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 13, 2004, as, upon re-argument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated March 3, 2003, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order dated September 13, 2004 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly adhered to its prior determination denying the motion of the defendant H.H.M. Associates, Inc. (hereinafter HHM), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. There remains a triable issue of fact as to whether or not HHM created the alleged defect that caused the plaintiffs accident (see Padula v City of Long Beach, 20 AD3d 555, 556 [2005]; Cucuzza v City of New York, 2 AD3d 389, 390 [2003]; Maggio v City of New York, 305 AD2d 554, 555 [2003]; Gerena v Town of Brookhaven, 280 AD2d 450 [2001]; cf. Tsviling v City of New York, 275 AD2d 367 [2000]).

Accordingly, HHM was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Skelos, 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 H.H.M. Associates, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 13, 2004, as, upon re-argument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated March 3, 2003, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order dated September 13, 2004 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly adhered to its prior determination denying the motion of the defendant H.H.M. Associates, Inc. (hereinafter HHM), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. There remains a triable issue of fact as to whether or not HHM created the alleged defect that caused the plaintiffs accident (see Padula v City of Long Beach, 20 AD3d 555, 556 [2005]; Cucuzza v City of New York, 2 AD3d 389, 390 [2003]; Maggio v City of New York, 305 AD2d 554, 555 [2003]; Gerena v Town of Brookhaven, 280 AD2d 450 [2001]; cf. Tsviling v City of New York, 275 AD2d 367 [2000]).

Accordingly, HHM was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 981, 815 N.Y.S.2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxton-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack