Thompson v. St. Charles Condominiums

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. St. Charles Condominiums

258 A.D.2d 448, 683 N.Y.S.2d 266

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 258 A.D.2d 448 (Thompson v. St. Charles Condominiums) 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

Thompson v. St. Charles Condominiums, 258 A.D.2d 448, 683 N.Y.S.2d 266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered July 15, 1997, which, in an action by a laborer for personal injuries sustained at a construction site, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that appellant’s denial of plaintiffs allegation that it was the developer, general contractor, construction manager or a subcontractor at the site leaves unresolved exactly what its role was at the site. The deficiency of appellant’s proof in this regard leaves no occasion for considering the quality of plaintiffs opposing proof (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered July 15, 1997, which, in an action by a laborer for personal injuries sustained at a construction site, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that appellant’s denial of plaintiffs allegation that it was the developer, general contractor, construction manager or a subcontractor at the site leaves unresolved exactly what its role was at the site. The deficiency of appellant’s proof in this regard leaves no occasion for considering the quality of plaintiffs opposing proof (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 448, 683 N.Y.S.2d 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-st-charles-condominiums-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack