Wright v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Riverbay Corp.

82 A.D.3d 444, 917 N.Y.2d 864

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 444 (Wright v. Riverbay Corp.) 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

Wright v. Riverbay Corp., 82 A.D.3d 444, 917 N.Y.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[445]*445Contrary to defendant’s objection to the jury charge and the other rulings of the court that placed the burden on defendant to show that it did not have notice of the absence of lights in the stairwell, plaintiffs evidence that a lack of illumination in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 37 was a proximate cause of his accident shifted the burden to defendant on the issue of notice (see Santiago v New York City Hous. Auth., 268 AD2d 203 [2000]).

Defendant’s request for a jury charge on comparative negligence should have been granted given the issue of whether plaintiff should have entered and descended an unlit stairwell under the facts of this case.

Defendant’s remaining arguments concerning various evidentiary rulings and the jury charge on the Multiple Dwelling Law are unpreserved for appellate review. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[445]*445Contrary to defendant’s objection to the jury charge and the other rulings of the court that placed the burden on defendant to show that it did not have notice of the absence of lights in the stairwell, plaintiffs evidence that a lack of illumination in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 37 was a proximate cause of his accident shifted the burden to defendant on the issue of notice (see Santiago v New York City Hous. Auth., 268 AD2d 203 [2000]).

Defendant’s request for a jury charge on comparative negligence should have been granted given the issue of whether plaintiff should have entered and descended an unlit stairwell under the facts of this case.

Defendant’s remaining arguments concerning various evidentiary rulings and the jury charge on the Multiple Dwelling Law are unpreserved for appellate review. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 444, 917 N.Y.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack