Vellios v. Green Apple

84 A.D.3d 1356, 923 N.Y.S.2d 895
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 1356 (Vellios v. Green Apple) 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
Vellios v. Green Apple, 84 A.D.3d 1356, 923 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated October 16, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendants Carmine Pellone and Rosemary Pellone, and the cross motion of the defendant Green Apple, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On June 23, 2006, the plaintiff was walking with the aid of a walker when the front wheels of that walker went into a tree well and he lost his balance and fell, allegedly sustaining injuries. The accident occurred in front of premises located on Kings Highway in Brooklyn, which was owned by the defendants Carmine Pellone and Rosemary Pellone (hereinafter the Pellones) and occupied by the defendant Green Apple (hereinafter Green Apple), a commercial tenant.

In support of their motion and cross motion for summary judgment, the Pellones and Green Apple, respectively, established their prima facie entitlements to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they had no duty to maintain the tree well, which is owned by the City of New York (see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517 [2008]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

’ Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion [1357]*1357and cross motion for summary judgment. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Marcano v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 00901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Newkirk v. City of New York
129 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Donadio v. City of New York
126 A.D.3d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Vigil v. City of New York
110 A.D.3d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Pevzner v. 1397 E. 2nd, LLC
96 A.D.3d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Morales v. Pozo
90 A.D.3d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 A.D.3d 1356, 923 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vellios-v-green-apple-nyappdiv-2011.