Verizon New York, Inc. v. Garvin

New York Court of Appeals

Verizon New York, Inc. v. Garvin

920 N.E.2d 90, 13 N.Y.3d 851, 891 N.Y.S.2d 686

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 2009

Docket211 SSM 45

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 920 N.E.2d 90 (Verizon New York, Inc. v. Garvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Verizon New York, Inc. v. Garvin, 920 N.E.2d 90, 13 N.Y.3d 851, 891 N.Y.S.2d 686 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendant landowner was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Verizon New York, Inc. for property damages arising from a fire that originated on defendant’s premises. Defendant came forward with evidence that, less than a year before the fire, he installed smoke detectors that were inspected and deemed operable by a municipal inspector, contradicting plaintiff’s claim that he negligently failed to install or maintain smoke detectors. In response, plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact by submitting proof in admissible form that the smoke detectors did not work on the day of the fire or that, prior to the incident, defendant had actual or constructive notice that they were not operable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendant landowner was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Verizon New York, Inc. for property damages arising from a fire that originated on defendant’s premises. Defendant came forward with evidence that, less than a year before the fire, he installed smoke detectors that were inspected and deemed operable by a municipal inspector, contradicting plaintiff’s claim that he negligently failed to install or maintain smoke detectors. In response, plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact by submitting proof in admissible form that the smoke detectors did not work on the day of the fire or that, prior to the incident, defendant had actual or constructive notice that they were not operable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 N.E.2d 90, 13 N.Y.3d 851, 891 N.Y.S.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verizon-new-york-inc-v-garvin-ny-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack