From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 2001
289 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2000-11335

Argued November 15, 2001.

December 24, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Silver Pasta, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated November 14, 2000, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Jacobowitz, Garfinkel Lesman, New York, N.Y. (Fiedelman McGaw [Dawn C. DeSimone] of counsel), for appellant.

Held, Held Held, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Steven G. Fauth, New York, N.Y. (Lowell D. Aptman of counsel), for defendants-respondents Fulvio Balestra and Julia Balestra a/k/a Giulietta Balestra.

Before: HOWARD MILLER, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendant Silver Pasta, Inc. (hereinafter Silver Pasta), established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the staircase where the plaintiff fell (see, Allen v. Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 A.D.2d 528; Millman v. Citibank, 216 A.D.2d 278). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the appellant had any duty to maintain the area in question. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

H. MILLER, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 2001
289 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Perez-Roman v. Fundex Capital Corporation

Case Details

Full title:SHAWNA PEREZ-ROMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FUNDEX CAPITAL CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Dec 24, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 410

Citing Cases

Theresa Loughlin v. City of New York

The plaintiffs, who were the only parties opposing Keyspan's cross motion, failed to raise a triable issue of…

Smith v. The City of New York

Since Picone is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the…