Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates

26 A.D.3d 303, 810 N.Y.S.2d 60

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 303 (Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates) 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

Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates, 26 A.D.3d 303, 810 N.Y.S.2d 60 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 25, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Seyed Taheri was injured when he turned on an allegedly defective boiler in defendant’s building. Defendant failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In any event, plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence, including the testimony and affidavit of the person who had requested assistance in turning on the boiler, to raise a question of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the defective condition.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 25, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Seyed Taheri was injured when he turned on an allegedly defective boiler in defendant’s building. Defendant failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In any event, plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence, including the testimony and affidavit of the person who had requested assistance in turning on the boiler, to raise a question of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the defective condition.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 303, 810 N.Y.S.2d 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taheri-v-1878-lexington-avenue-associates-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack