Whelan v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

19 A.D.3d 483, 797 N.Y.S.2d 113
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 483 (Whelan v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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
Whelan v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 19 A.D.3d 483, 797 N.Y.S.2d 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated April 23, 2004, which denied, as premature, its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) because certain relevant discovery remained outstanding. The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on an icy metal plate in an area of LaGuardia Airport that was part of a repair or construction project. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord that did not control the area where the [484]*484plaintiff’s accident occurred, and was not contractually or statutorily liable to repair or maintain the area. Nevertheless, pursuant to the lease of the area where the accident occurred, the defendant retained the right to perform certain repairs and construction, and there is a question of fact as to whether the defendant performed any work in the area. Accordingly, in light of the defendant’s failure to comply with document demands regarding the work performed at the subject accident site, and with preliminary conference and compliance conference orders to appear for depositions, its motion was premature.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Robles v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 00687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Astudillo v. City of New York
71 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
J.C. v. Rose
34 A.D.3d 1248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Adrianis v. Fox
30 A.D.3d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ticali v. Locascio
24 A.D.3d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 483, 797 N.Y.S.2d 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whelan-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2005.