Zanki v. Cahill

New York Court of Appeals

Zanki v. Cahill

812 N.E.2d 1257, 2 N.Y.3d 783, 780 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2 N.Y. 783, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1037

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 11, 2004·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The Appellate Division properly determined that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the alleged injuries resulted from a dangerous recurring condition of which defendant Cushman & Wakefield had actual or constructive notice.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), 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.

The Appellate Division properly determined that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the alleged injuries resulted from a dangerous recurring condition of which defendant Cushman & Wakefield had actual or constructive notice.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Zanki v. Cahill, 812 N.E.2d 1257, 2 N.Y.3d 783, 780 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2 N.Y. 783, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1037 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

812 N.E.2d 1257 (Zanki v. Cahill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related