Nordquist v. Piccadilly Hotel Company

Full title: OTTO NORDQUIST et al., Respondents, v. PICCADILLY HOTEL COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: May 30, 1991

173 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

570 N.Y.S.2d 43

Opinion

May 30, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).

There are material issues of fact with respect to their ownership or control of the area where plaintiff Otto Nordquist slipped and fell. Even absent evidence that defendants repaired the pathway in question, issues of fact remain with respect to whether this pathway was developed or used exclusively to benefit the land admittedly owned by defendant Piccadilly Hotel Company, such that a duty would arise to maintain it in a reasonably safe condition by virtue of a special use or benefit (Balsam v Delma Eng'g Corp., 139 A.D.2d 292, lv dismissed in part 73 N.Y.2d 783).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.