From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morrison v. Gerlitzky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 2001
282 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

April 12, 2001.

April 30, 2001.

Gershberg Greenberg, New York, N.Y. (Melvin F. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Longo D'Apice, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mark A. Longo and Jonathan Tabar of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated April 25, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Abraham Gerlitzky for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon a defendant's ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property (see, Golds v. Del Aguila, 259 A.D.2d 942; Allen v. Pearson Publ. Empire, 256 A.D.2d 528; Millman v. Citibank, 216 A.D.2d 278). The respondent established that, as a tenant of the building owned by the defendants Benjamin Levitin and Shirley Levitin (hereinafter the Levitins), he used the exterior steps where the alleged accident occurred in common with the Levitins. In addition, he established that he had no contractual obligation to maintain the common areas. In opposition to the respondent's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff produced no evidence that the respondent created the alleged dangerous condition or made special use of the exterior steps. Thus, the respondent may not be held liable for failing to correct the alleged dangerous condition (see, White v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 262 A.D.2d 636; Golds v. Del Aguila, supra; Welwood v. Association for Children With Down Syndrome, 248 A.D.2d 707; Millman v. Citibank, supra).


Summaries of

Morrison v. Gerlitzky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 2001
282 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Morrison v. Gerlitzky

Case Details

Full title:RUSSELL MORRISON, appellant, v. ABRAHAM GERLITZKY, respondent, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 73

Citing Cases

Kubicsko v. Westchester Cnty. Elec., Inc.

The Supreme Court denied the motion and those branches of the cross motion. Westchester demonstrated its…

DeCourcey v. Briarcliff Congregational Church

63 N.Y.S.2d 669). Additionally, while the absence of a violation of a specific code or ordinance “is not…