Spalding v. Toomer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spalding v. Toomer

25 A.D.3d 373, 806 N.Y.S.2d 871

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 373 (Spalding v. Toomer) 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

Spalding v. Toomer, 25 A.D.3d 373, 806 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries by a tenant against her landlord, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that when she rested her foot on a baseboard radiator, she cut her toe on a small piece of protruding wire, ultimately resulting in the amputation of her leg below the knee. The action was properly dismissed upon a record establishing as a matter of law that, in the circumstances presented, the [374]*374protruding wire was not a dangerous condition. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries by a tenant against her landlord, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that when she rested her foot on a baseboard radiator, she cut her toe on a small piece of protruding wire, ultimately resulting in the amputation of her leg below the knee. The action was properly dismissed upon a record establishing as a matter of law that, in the circumstances presented, the [374]*374protruding wire was not a dangerous condition. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 373, 806 N.Y.S.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spalding-v-toomer-nyappdiv-2006.