Silberstein v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silberstein v. City of New York

7 A.D.3d 692, 776 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7073

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 17, 2004·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for [693]*693personal injuries, etc., the defendant Bernard Jacobowitz appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Knipel, J.), dated June 5, 2003, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him, and the defendants Sinai Eizikovitz and Esther Eizikovitz cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The movants failed to meet their prima facie burdens of demonstrating that they did not create the defect in the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff Betty Silberstein allegedly tripped and fell (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Kreimer v Rockefeller Group, 2 AD3d 407 [2003]). Accordingly, the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the movants were properly denied. Florio, J.P., Townes, Cozier and Mastro, 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 [693]*693personal injuries, etc., the defendant Bernard Jacobowitz appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Knipel, J.), dated June 5, 2003, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him, and the defendants Sinai Eizikovitz and Esther Eizikovitz cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The movants failed to meet their prima facie burdens of demonstrating that they did not create the defect in the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff Betty Silberstein allegedly tripped and fell (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Kreimer v Rockefeller Group, 2 AD3d 407 [2003]). Accordingly, the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the movants were properly denied. Florio, J.P., Townes, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Silberstein v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 692, 776 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

7 A.D.3d 692 (Silberstein v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related