Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James LONGO, et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 29, 1997, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant American Golf Corporation, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the action against the defendant American Golf Corporation is severed.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York, as the plaintiffs failed to plead and prove compliance with Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2) (see, Solone v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 332, 656 N.Y.S.2d 915; Acevedo v. City of New York, 128 A.D.2d 488, 512 N.Y.S.2d 414).
The Supreme Court erred, however, when it granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant American Golf Corporation, as there exist triable issues of fact as to whether that defendant negligently performed its duties to maintain and repair the cart path upon which the plaintiff was injured (see, Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 611 N.Y.S.2d 817, 634 N.E.2d 189; Drennen v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 379, 681 N.Y.S.2d 590; Pasquerella v. Estey Corp., 249 A.D.2d 456, 671 N.Y.S.2d 311).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 14, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)