From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 1993
194 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 29, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.).


In light of defendant's conceded ownership, management and operation of the instant premises, it appears that defendant constructed or created the instant walking ramp as part of the apartment building, or had said ramp constructed for access to and from the building. Accordingly, defendant is charged with actual notice of the alleged defective design and/or construction of the ramp (see, Lewis v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 A.D.2d 246, 249, affd 64 N.Y.2d 670). At the very least, questions of fact exist as to who is responsible for the creation and/or design of the ramp. In addition, in light of the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, plaintiff has sufficiently raised questions of fact regarding the propriety of the pitch of the ramp and the unavailability of handrails.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Russell v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 1993
194 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Russell v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:BERNARDINA RUSSELL, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 576

Citing Cases

Woodford v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

Ferrara v. Sheraton McAlpin Corp., 311 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1962) ("[U]nder New York law liability may not be…

Rivera v. Target Corp.

However, a property owner's general awareness that a dangerous condition may exist does not constitute notice…