Skisdopolus v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skisdopolus v. Edwards

137 A.D.3d 605, 26 N.Y.S.3d 702

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

Docket564 103169/11

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 605 (Skisdopolus v. Edwards) 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

Skisdopolus v. Edwards, 137 A.D.3d 605, 26 N.Y.S.3d 702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 20, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Jacqueline Edwards and Jason Megson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Having dismissed the complaint as against defendants Akam Associates, Inc. and the Future Condominium on the ground that the condition over which plaintiff tripped in the hallway of her apartment building was an open, obvious and not inherently dangerous condition, the court erred in failing to dismiss the complaint as against defendants Edwards and Megson on the same ground (see Samantha R. v New York City Hous. Auth., 117 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 904 [2014]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 20, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Jacqueline Edwards and Jason Megson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Having dismissed the complaint as against defendants Akam Associates, Inc. and the Future Condominium on the ground that the condition over which plaintiff tripped in the hallway of her apartment building was an open, obvious and not inherently dangerous condition, the court erred in failing to dismiss the complaint as against defendants Edwards and Megson on the same ground (see Samantha R. v New York City Hous. Auth., 117 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 904 [2014]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 605, 26 N.Y.S.3d 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skisdopolus-v-edwards-nyappdiv-2016.