Scialpi v. Island Right Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scialpi v. Island Right Homes, Inc.

304 A.D.2d 551, 757 N.Y.S.2d 334

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

DecidedApril 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 551 (Scialpi v. Island Right Homes, Inc.) 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

Scialpi v. Island Right Homes, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 551, 757 N.Y.S.2d 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Island Right Homes, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler J.), dated February 25, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant landlord did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. There are triable issues of fact with respect to whether it created a dangerous condition by improperly installing a handrail on the subject premises (see Spencer v Geiger, 269 AD2d 522, 523 [2000]). In any event, even if the landlord did not create the allegedly defective condition, there are triable issues of fact with respect to whether the landlord had notice that the handrail was defective and, if so, whether the landlord was obligated to repair the defect (see Stalter v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 220 AD2d 577, 578 [1995]; cf. Ross v Lyndhurst, 290 AD2d 432, 433-434 [2002]). The landlord’s failure to sustain its burden required the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, 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 Island Right Homes, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler J.), dated February 25, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant landlord did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. There are triable issues of fact with respect to whether it created a dangerous condition by improperly installing a handrail on the subject premises (see Spencer v Geiger, 269 AD2d 522, 523 [2000]). In any event, even if the landlord did not create the allegedly defective condition, there are triable issues of fact with respect to whether the landlord had notice that the handrail was defective and, if so, whether the landlord was obligated to repair the defect (see Stalter v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 220 AD2d 577, 578 [1995]; cf. Ross v Lyndhurst, 290 AD2d 432, 433-434 [2002]). The landlord’s failure to sustain its burden required the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 551, 757 N.Y.S.2d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scialpi-v-island-right-homes-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack