Stein v. Abraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. Abraham

264 A.D.2d 730, 695 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9046

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 730 (Stein v. Abraham) 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

Stein v. Abraham, 264 A.D.2d 730, 695 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 27, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action predicated on General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismiss[731]*731ing the second cause of action predicated upon General Municipal Law § 205-e. The wall from which the plaintiff fell was not a “partition fence” or a “retaining wall” and, thus, was not within the purview of the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-233. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 27, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action predicated on General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismiss[731]*731ing the second cause of action predicated upon General Municipal Law § 205-e. The wall from which the plaintiff fell was not a “partition fence” or a “retaining wall” and, thus, was not within the purview of the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-233. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 730, 695 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-abraham-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack