Schulman v. 34th Street Partnership, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulman v. 34th Street Partnership, Inc.

88 A.D.3d 459, 930 N.Y.2d 438

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 2011·Published

Opinion

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence, including that several years earlier defendant, as part of a business improvement district project, had the granite cornerstones installed on the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, was insufficient to show that defendant did not cause or create the dangerous and defective condition existing at the time of the accident (see Lebron v Napa Realty Corp., 65 AD3d 436 [2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence, including that several years earlier defendant, as part of a business improvement district project, had the granite cornerstones installed on the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, was insufficient to show that defendant did not cause or create the dangerous and defective condition existing at the time of the accident (see Lebron v Napa Realty Corp., 65 AD3d 436 [2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Schulman v. 34th Street Partnership, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 459, 930 N.Y.2d 438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 459 (Schulman v. 34th Street Partnership, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related