Stevanovic v. T.U.C. Management Co.

305 A.D.2d 133, 758 N.Y.S.2d 59, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 6, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 133 (Stevanovic v. T.U.C. Management Co.) 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
Stevanovic v. T.U.C. Management Co., 305 A.D.2d 133, 758 N.Y.S.2d 59, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered July 16, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While defendant’s motion for summary judgment, its second, [134]*134was not procedurally inappropriate, having been premised in part upon new evidence obtained in discovery since its first summary judgment motion several years before (cf. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Windsor Place Corp., 238 AD2d 142, 143 [1997]), the motion was nonetheless properly denied. Plaintiff sues to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when a handrail gave way and he fell down a staircase in the building at which he was employed. The building was managed by defendant. Defendant maintains that its control over the premises pursuant to its management contract with the building owner was insufficient to support a finding that it had a duty to maintain the premises for third parties. However, the management contract, affording defendant broad authority to maintain the premises and make ordinary repairs costing less than $1,000, and to make emergency repairs, regardless of cost, without prior approval of the owner, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether it was under a duty to a building employee, such as plaintiff, to repair a defective staircase handrail (see Tushaj v 322 Elm Mgt. Assoc., 293 AD2d 44 [2002]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Jones v. Vornado N.Y. RR One L.L.C.
2024 NY Slip Op 00134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Thomas v. Triboro Maintenance Corp.
2021 NY Slip Op 01526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
XX v. Dunwell El. Elec. Indus., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 06376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Vushaj v. Insignia Residential Group, Inc.
50 A.D.3d 393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Strauss v. Original Consumers Oil Heating Corp.
9 Misc. 3d 57 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Hopper v. Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Co.
2004 NY Slip Op 50641(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.D.2d 133, 758 N.Y.S.2d 59, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevanovic-v-tuc-management-co-nyappdiv-2003.