Torres v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. New York City Housing Authority

270 A.D.2d 100, 705 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2820

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 14, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 11, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied since issues of fact exist as to whether the elevator door that swung open pinning the 12-year-old plaintiffs hand against a wall was defective, whether defendant created or had constructive knowledge of the allegedly defective door (see, Briones v BSC Sec. Corp., .224 AD2d 200), and whether the unidentified elevator passenger’s act of forcefully opening the elevator door and, in so doing, pinning [101]*101the child’s hand, was an intervening and superseding cause of the infant plaintiffs harm or simply a foreseeable consequence of defendant’s alleged negligence (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315-316). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 11, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied since issues of fact exist as to whether the elevator door that swung open pinning the 12-year-old plaintiffs hand against a wall was defective, whether defendant created or had constructive knowledge of the allegedly defective door (see, Briones v BSC Sec. Corp., .224 AD2d 200), and whether the unidentified elevator passenger’s act of forcefully opening the elevator door and, in so doing, pinning [101]*101the child’s hand, was an intervening and superseding cause of the infant plaintiffs harm or simply a foreseeable consequence of defendant’s alleged negligence (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315-316). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Torres v. New York City Housing Authority, 270 A.D.2d 100, 705 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 100 (Torres v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related