From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Sfeir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 30, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.

Present — Balio, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, landlords of the premises where plaintiff was injured. There is no evidence that defendants exercised such supervision and control over the premises at the time plaintiff was injured so as to render them liable to plaintiff (see, Lashway v. King, 179 A.D.2d 919, 921; Firpi v. New York City Hous. Auth., 175 A.D.2d 858, 859-860, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 864; Cavanaugh v. Knights of Columbus Council 4360, 142 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 604). The grant of summary judgment was not premature; plaintiff failed to demonstrate that further discovery would give rise to identifiable triable issues of fact (see, Jessup v. Hedberg, 196 A.D.2d 857; Waterman v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 184 A.D.2d 1029).


Summaries of

Smith v. Sfeir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Smith v. Sfeir

Case Details

Full title:JEROME SMITH, Appellant, v. ANTHONY K. SFEIR, JR., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 30, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 294

Citing Cases

Key Equity of N.Y. v. Azzam

The mere denial of the receipt of the notice, however, was insufficient to overcome the presumption of…