Stolzman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stolzman v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 247, 146 A.D.3d 531, 43 N.Y.S.3d 903

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2017

Docket2734 112913/09

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 247 (Stolzman v. City of New York) 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

Stolzman v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 247, 146 A.D.3d 531, 43 N.Y.S.3d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered January 16, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Boulevard Housing Corp. (BHC) and Akam Associates, Inc. (Akam) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as against the defaulting defendants Manhattan Community Board 7 and Cooper Square Realty Inc., unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated as against BHC, Akam, and the defaulting defendants.

BHC and Akam, the owner And property manager of the premises that abutted a sidewalk where plaintiff Alison Stolz-man tripped, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the testimony and photographic evidence indicating the alleged hazard was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see generally Boyd v New York City Hous. Auth., 105 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2013]).

However, there remain triable issues as to whether the alleged low-lying tripping condition dangerously narrowed the passable area of the sidewalk and was adequately visible at night (see Nunez v Wah Kok Realty Corp., 110 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2013]; Centeno v Regine’s Originals, 5 AD3d 210 [1st Dept 2004]; compare Barchi v Rudin E. 55th St. LLC, 144 AD3d 444 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered January 16, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Boulevard Housing Corp. (BHC) and Akam Associates, Inc. (Akam) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as against the defaulting defendants Manhattan Community Board 7 and Cooper Square Realty Inc., unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated as against BHC, Akam, and the defaulting defendants.

BHC and Akam, the owner And property manager of the premises that abutted a sidewalk where plaintiff Alison Stolz-man tripped, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the testimony and photographic evidence indicating the alleged hazard was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see generally Boyd v New York City Hous. Auth., 105 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2013]).

However, there remain triable issues as to whether the alleged low-lying tripping condition dangerously narrowed the passable area of the sidewalk and was adequately visible at night (see Nunez v Wah Kok Realty Corp., 110 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2013]; Centeno v Regine’s Originals, 5 AD3d 210 [1st Dept 2004]; compare Barchi v Rudin E. 55th St. LLC, 144 AD3d 444 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 247, 146 A.D.3d 531, 43 N.Y.S.3d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stolzman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack