Showverer v. Allerton Associates

306 A.D.2d 144, 761 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6992
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 144 (Showverer v. Allerton Associates) 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
Showverer v. Allerton Associates, 306 A.D.2d 144, 761 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered January 7, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff stepped onto a fire escape attached to defendants’ building and the fire escape collapsed, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants relied on the deposition testimony of their property manager, who stated that she lacked knowledge of the age or condition of the fire escape, admitted that defendants did not employ anyone to inspect the fire escape, could not say when the fire escape had been last inspected and could not say why the fire escape’s landing platform suddenly collapsed under plaintiffs weight. Apparently, defendants are of the view that such testimony shows, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice that the fire escape was in danger of collapse. However, implicit in defendants’ duty to maintain the fire escape in good repair (see e.g. Multiple Dwelling Law § 53 [8] [b]; § 78) was a duty to make timely and adequate inspections for disrepair (see 85 NY Jur 2d, Premises Liability § 51). There being no showing of any such inspections, defendants failed to show lack of constructive notice as a matter of law, requiring denial of their motion regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Rondon v. 328 W. 44 St. LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 06295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Thomas v. Triboro Maintenance Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 00287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Young v. 1530 Rosedale Partners, LLC
2022 NY Slip Op 05970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Lombardi v. Partnership 92 West, L.P.
129 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Haleemeh M.S. v. MRMS Realty Corp.
28 Misc. 3d 443 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Peters v. Trammell Crow Co.
47 A.D.3d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 144, 761 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/showverer-v-allerton-associates-nyappdiv-2003.