From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 2006
26 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7976.

February 28, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 25, 2005, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Marshall, Conway Wright, P.C., New York (Amy S. Weissman of counsel), for appellant.

Oshman Mirisola, LLP, New York (Charles Mirisola of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.


Plaintiff Seyed Taheri was injured when he turned on an allegedly defective boiler in defendant's building. Defendant failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law ( Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). In any event, plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence, including the testimony and affidavit of the person who had requested assistance in turning on the boiler, to raise a question of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the defective condition.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 2006
26 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Taheri v. 1878 Lexington Avenue Associates

Case Details

Full title:SEYED TAHERI et al., Respondents, v. 1878 LEXINGTON AVENUE ASSOCIATES…

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

Date published: Feb 28, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1399
810 N.Y.S.2d 60

Citing Cases

Williams v. Karwowskl

Once a defendant has met this burden, the plaintiff must then submit objective and admissible proof of the…