Vazquez v. Santana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vazquez v. Santana

291 A.D.2d 230, 737 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 230 (Vazquez v. Santana) 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

Vazquez v. Santana, 291 A.D.2d 230, 737 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about August 29, 2000, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions denied and the complaint reinstated as against them.

Since the deposition testimony of plaintiff and two nonparty witnesses raises issues of fact as to whether either or both of defendants-respondents created the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall, i.e., a patch of ice and grease on the sidewalk outside the restaurant, defendants’ motions for summary judgment were improperly granted (see, Ramos v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 220). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about August 29, 2000, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions denied and the complaint reinstated as against them.

Since the deposition testimony of plaintiff and two nonparty witnesses raises issues of fact as to whether either or both of defendants-respondents created the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall, i.e., a patch of ice and grease on the sidewalk outside the restaurant, defendants’ motions for summary judgment were improperly granted (see, Ramos v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 220). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 230, 737 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazquez-v-santana-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack