Rebell v. Emigrant Savings Bank

Full title: SUSAN REBELL, Respondent, v. EMIGRANT SAVINGS BANK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jan 21, 1999

257 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

684 N.Y.S.2d 216

Opinion

January 21, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.).

Summary judgment was properly denied as to defendant Emigrant Savings Bank since issues of fact exist as to whether Emigrant created or increased the hazard that is alleged to have caused plaintiff's fall and injury ( see, Quintana v. Mei, 254 A.D.2d 96; Jiuz v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 298). However, summary judgment should have been granted to Harvard Maintenance whose contractual obligations to Emigrant did not give rise to a special duty of care to plaintiff ( Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579). We do not dismiss defendant Emigrant's claims against defendant Harvard Maintenance.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.