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.
John COSENZA, respondent-appellant, v. 303 BEVERLY OWNERS CORP., appellant-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated January 28, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff, a New York City Police Officer, allegedly was injured while investigating a report of a suspicious package on the roof of the defendant's premises.
The Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to both parties on the General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, a defendant may be held liable for personal injuries when those injuries are shown to be practically and reasonably connected to a violation by the defendant of a statute or code (see Galapo v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 568, 572, 721 N.Y.S.2d 857, 744 N.E.2d 685; Delio v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 325, 777 N.Y.S.2d 911; Quinto v. New York City Tr. Auth., 7 A.D.3d 689, 776 N.Y.S.2d 835; Williams v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 332, 681 N.Y.S.2d 340). In this case, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the cited provisions of the New York City Building Code applied to the area where the plaintiff was injured and whether the defendant violated those provisions.
Similarly, the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to both parties on the common-law negligence cause of action. There are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant created the allegedly defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Crespi v. M.E.I.T. Assoc., LLC, 18 A.D.3d 495, 795 N.Y.S.2d 275; Williams v. Century 21, 12 A.D.3d 364, 783 N.Y.S.2d 310; Curiale v. Sharrotts Woods, 9 A.D.3d 473, 781 N.Y.S.2d 47; Lee v. Bethel First Pentecostal Church of Am., 304 A.D.2d 798, 762 N.Y.S.2d 80).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 22, 2006
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)