Zilberman v. Caesar's Bay Bazaar Ltd. Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zilberman v. Caesar's Bay Bazaar Ltd. Partnership

24 A.D.3d 542, 807 N.Y.S.2d 110

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 542 (Zilberman v. Caesar's Bay Bazaar Ltd. Partnership) 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

Zilberman v. Caesar's Bay Bazaar Ltd. Partnership, 24 A.D.3d 542, 807 N.Y.S.2d 110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Caesar’s Bay Bazaar Limited Partnership and Toys “R” Us-NY, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on their cross claims against the defendant Saltru Associates.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The appellants succeeded in making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judg[543]*543ment as a matter of law by submitting deposition testimony and copies of lease provisions indicating that they did not have a duty to maintain the parking area where the injured plaintiff fell (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The plaintiffs sustained this burden by raising triable issues of fact regarding the degree of control and authority exercised over the subject property by the appellants, and the extent to which the appellants’ personnel undertook the duty to remove snow and ice from the subject parking area (see generally Armbruster v In the Woods Assn., 249 AD2d 980 [1998]; Abdul-Azim v RDC Commercial Ctr., 210 AD2d 191 [1994]; Hoberman v Kids “R” Us, 187 AD2d 187 [1993]).

Similarly, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment on their cross claims against the defendant Saltru Associates was properly denied, since triable issues of fact exist with regard to the defendants’ respective obligations to maintain the subject parking area and their responsibility for the icy condition that caused the injured plaintiff’s fall. Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Caesar’s Bay Bazaar Limited Partnership and Toys “R” Us-NY, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on their cross claims against the defendant Saltru Associates.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The appellants succeeded in making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judg[543]*543ment as a matter of law by submitting deposition testimony and copies of lease provisions indicating that they did not have a duty to maintain the parking area where the injured plaintiff fell (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The plaintiffs sustained this burden by raising triable issues of fact regarding the degree of control and authority exercised over the subject property by the appellants, and the extent to which the appellants’ personnel undertook the duty to remove snow and ice from the subject parking area (see generally Armbruster v In the Woods Assn., 249 AD2d 980 [1998]; Abdul-Azim v RDC Commercial Ctr., 210 AD2d 191 [1994]; Hoberman v Kids “R” Us, 187 AD2d 187 [1993]).

Similarly, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment on their cross claims against the defendant Saltru Associates was properly denied, since triable issues of fact exist with regard to the defendants’ respective obligations to maintain the subject parking area and their responsibility for the icy condition that caused the injured plaintiff’s fall. Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 542, 807 N.Y.S.2d 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zilberman-v-caesars-bay-bazaar-ltd-partnership-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack