Tannenbaum v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tannenbaum v. City of New York

261 A.D.2d 342, 690 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5806

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

DecidedMay 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 342 (Tannenbaum 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

Tannenbaum v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 342, 690 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1998, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied since triable issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff’s decedent tripped and fell on defendant New York University’s property or on the adjoining public sidewalk and, if the latter, as to whether New York University had special use of the sidewalk. Defendant’s contention that it will be impossible to ascertain the location of the accident except by conjecture and surmise is without merit since plaintiff’s decedent repeatedly and consistently described the location of the accident in the complaint and pleadings. Using that description, it should be possible at trial to determine which of the defendants had ownership and/or use of the area where the accident occurred. The denial of summary judgment was also appropriate in light of defendant-appellant’s failure to comply with all of plaintiff’s discovery requests (see, Caturano v City of New York, 224 AD2d 202). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1998, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied since triable issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff’s decedent tripped and fell on defendant New York University’s property or on the adjoining public sidewalk and, if the latter, as to whether New York University had special use of the sidewalk. Defendant’s contention that it will be impossible to ascertain the location of the accident except by conjecture and surmise is without merit since plaintiff’s decedent repeatedly and consistently described the location of the accident in the complaint and pleadings. Using that description, it should be possible at trial to determine which of the defendants had ownership and/or use of the area where the accident occurred. The denial of summary judgment was also appropriate in light of defendant-appellant’s failure to comply with all of plaintiff’s discovery requests (see, Caturano v City of New York, 224 AD2d 202). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 342, 690 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tannenbaum-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack