Munoz v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Full title: GILBERT MUNOZ, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1993

198 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

603 N.Y.S.2d 858

Opinion

November 18, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).

Unresolved questions concerning the specific surface and/or object which allegedly precipitated plaintiff's fall and injury, and whether third-party defendant could have caused or contributed to the alleged mishap, preclude a grant of summary judgment. That third-party defendant's paving work was deemed satisfactory by an inspector nine months prior to the accident does not eliminate the possibility that a latent defect may have caused the accident (see, Sternbach v Cornell Univ., 162 A.D.2d 922).

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.