From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 2009
59 A.D.3d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 5300.

February 19, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 10, 2008, which denied the motion of defendants 101 East 161st Street Restaurant Corp. and 101 Restaurant Corp. and the cross motion of Burger King, Burger King Corp. and Walton Foods Enterprises, L.L.C. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Gannon, Rosenfarb Moskowitz, New York (James A. Aldag of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Molod Spitz DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Shaevitz Shaevitz, Jamaica (Jonathan R. Vitarelli of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.


Defendants did not demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment, since their conflicting evidence failed to establish their lack of responsibility for the alleged hazardous grease condition on the public sidewalk and since their argument that other possible sources for the condition existed was properly rejected ( see Bowry v Uptown Gift Shop, 292 AD2d 240). In any event, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with evidence from which a jury could infer that one, or more, of defendants created the alleged hazardous condition (see Vazquez v Santana, 291 AD2d 230).


Summaries of

Lee v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 2009
59 A.D.3d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Lee v. King

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY LEE, Respondent, v. BURGER KING et al., Respondents-Appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 19, 2009

Citations

59 A.D.3d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1309
873 N.Y.S.2d 303