Tam v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tam v. City of New York

258 A.D.2d 613, 682 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 613 (Tam 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

Tam v. City of New York, 258 A.D.2d 613, 682 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover dam[614]*614ages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 31, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the particular circumstances presented, “there is a question of fact concerning whether or not the [defendant] City [of New York] had an adequate opportunity to remedy the [snow and ice] condition that allegedly caused the plaintiffs accident”. The court was therefore correct in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see generally, Candelier v City of New York, 129 AD2d 145; Krause v City of New York, 152 AD2d 473; cf., Canario v City of New York, 246 AD2d 618; Martinez v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 AD2d 286). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover dam[614]*614ages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 31, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the particular circumstances presented, “there is a question of fact concerning whether or not the [defendant] City [of New York] had an adequate opportunity to remedy the [snow and ice] condition that allegedly caused the plaintiffs accident”. The court was therefore correct in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see generally, Candelier v City of New York, 129 AD2d 145; Krause v City of New York, 152 AD2d 473; cf., Canario v City of New York, 246 AD2d 618; Martinez v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 AD2d 286). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 613, 682 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tam-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack