Slutskaya v. Landau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slutskaya v. Landau

250 A.D.2d 594, 672 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4886

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 594 (Slutskaya v. Landau) 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

Slutskaya v. Landau, 250 A.D.2d 594, 672 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Golden, J.), entered February 27, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant Abraham Landau for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record is devoid of any evidence that the plaintiff tenants informed the defendant landlord, or that he otherwise [595]*595knew, of the broken lock on the window in their apartment, through which an intruder gained entrance. Accordingly, because the defendant landlord had no notice of the allegedly defective lock, he was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 642-643). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Gold-stein, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Golden, J.), entered February 27, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant Abraham Landau for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record is devoid of any evidence that the plaintiff tenants informed the defendant landlord, or that he otherwise [595]*595knew, of the broken lock on the window in their apartment, through which an intruder gained entrance. Accordingly, because the defendant landlord had no notice of the allegedly defective lock, he was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 642-643). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 594, 672 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slutskaya-v-landau-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack