From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vega v. Hastings Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1998
248 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 2, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly identified numerous issues of fact that preclude an award of judgment as a matter of law in this negligence case. Most significantly, there is an issue of fact concerning whether the defendants had notice of the separation of the stairway handrail from the newel post (see, Wormer v. Barr, 231 A.D.2d 838; Baldino v. Long Is. R. R., 216 A.D.2d 262; Weiser v. Gumowitz, 209 A.D.2d 509). Furthermore, while the plaintiff alleges that the condition of the staircase was dilapidated in general and that it was in violation of Multiple Residence Law § 132, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the requirements of the Multiple Residence Law are even applicable to the defendants' building (see, Multiple Residence Law § 11). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vega v. Hastings Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1998
248 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Vega v. Hastings Partners

Case Details

Full title:CARMEN VEGA, Appellant, v. HASTINGS PARTNERS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 2, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 844

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. 521 Properties Corp.

Section 132 does not require changes to buildings occupied as a multiple dwelling on July 1, 1952 which…

Lieb v. Guzman

gment as a matter of law. The defendants established, prima facie, that they did not create the allegedly…