Schosek v. Amherst Paving, Inc.
901 N.E.2d 749, 11 N.Y.3d 882
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, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and that part of defendant Amherst Paving, Inc.’s motion that sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it denied. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Amherst Paving created or exacerbated a dangerous condition.
Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schosek v. Amherst Paving, Inc., 901 N.E.2d 749, 11 N.Y.3d 882 (N.Y. 2008).
901 N.E.2d 749 (Schosek v. Amherst Paving, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Divens v. Finger Lakes Gaming & Racing Assn., Inc., LP
2017 NY Slip Op 4612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
PARO, CAMERON E. v. PIEDMONT LAND AND CATTLE, LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Paro v. Piedmont Land & Cattle
111 A.D.3d 1425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Kelley v. Schneck
106 A.D.3d 1175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Petito v. City of New York
95 A.D.3d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Golisano v. Keeler Construction Co.
74 A.D.3d 1915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Boderick v. R.Y. Management Co.
71 A.D.3d 144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)