Vanriel v. Lumber Headquarters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanriel v. Lumber Headquarters

271 A.D.2d 684, 707 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 684 (Vanriel v. Lumber Headquarters) 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

Vanriel v. Lumber Headquarters, 271 A.D.2d 684, 707 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages fo personal injuries, etc., the defendant Lumber Headquarters appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated February 19, 1999, which denied its motion for [685]*685summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the appellant made out a prima facie case in its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs established, in opposition thereto, that issues of fact exist regarding whether the presence of flowing water emanating from a yard adjacent to the appellant’s store constituted a defective condition, and whether the appellant owned or controlled the yard from where the water emanated (see, Montalvo v Western Estates, 240 AD2d 45; Lopez v City of New York, 259 AD2d 601). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages fo personal injuries, etc., the defendant Lumber Headquarters appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated February 19, 1999, which denied its motion for [685]*685summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the appellant made out a prima facie case in its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs established, in opposition thereto, that issues of fact exist regarding whether the presence of flowing water emanating from a yard adjacent to the appellant’s store constituted a defective condition, and whether the appellant owned or controlled the yard from where the water emanated (see, Montalvo v Western Estates, 240 AD2d 45; Lopez v City of New York, 259 AD2d 601). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 684, 707 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanriel-v-lumber-headquarters-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack