Silberberg v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silberberg v. City of New York

260 A.D.2d 626, 687 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4297

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 626 (Silberberg 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

Silberberg v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 626, 687 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Senior League of Flatbush appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated April 6, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious (see, Warren v Town of Hempstead, 246 AD2d 536, 537; Kinfe v Port Auth., 232 AD2d 373). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 Senior League of Flatbush appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated April 6, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious (see, Warren v Town of Hempstead, 246 AD2d 536, 537; Kinfe v Port Auth., 232 AD2d 373). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 626, 687 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silberberg-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack