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.
Maria CARRION, appellant, v. 350–52 SOUTH FOURTH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, et al., respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Loren Baily–Schiffman, J.), dated September 19, 2019. The order granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on water that had accumulated on the bathroom floor of her apartment due to a leaking toilet. The apartment is located in a residential cooperative building owned by the defendant 350–52 South Fourth Street Housing Development Fund Corporation and managed by the defendant Del Mar Management, LLC. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the apartment was owned by the plaintiff, and thus, the defendants were not responsible for repairing the alleged defective condition. In an order dated September 19, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion raised triable issues of fact regarding ownership of the apartment (see Sarvis v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 854, 855, 941 N.Y.S.2d 866; Brosnan v. Town of New Windsor, 57 A.D.3d 468, 468, 869 N.Y.S.2d 176; Simmons v. Elmcrest Homeowners’ Assn., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 447, 448, 783 N.Y.S.2d 384).
In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's remaining contentions need not be reached.
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2019–11350
Decided: November 02, 2022
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)