Soto v. Anron Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soto v. Anron Enterprises

293 A.D.2d 395, 740 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077

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

DecidedApril 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 395 (Soto v. Anron Enterprises) 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

Soto v. Anron Enterprises, 293 A.D.2d 395, 740 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered June 5, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as there was evidence before the court sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether appellants created or caused the alleged hazard, and to support the inference that the alleged hazard, situated upon a public sidewalk, posed a foreseeable risk to pedestrians such as the infant plaintiff, appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. ‘When one undertakes work in a public highway which, unless carefully done, will create conditions which are dangerous to members of the public using the highway, in the usual and ordinary manner, he is under a duty to use requisite care” (Boylhart v DiMarco & Reimann, 270 NY 217, 221). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered June 5, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as there was evidence before the court sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether appellants created or caused the alleged hazard, and to support the inference that the alleged hazard, situated upon a public sidewalk, posed a foreseeable risk to pedestrians such as the infant plaintiff, appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. ‘When one undertakes work in a public highway which, unless carefully done, will create conditions which are dangerous to members of the public using the highway, in the usual and ordinary manner, he is under a duty to use requisite care” (Boylhart v DiMarco & Reimann, 270 NY 217, 221). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 395, 740 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-anron-enterprises-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack