Riner v. Texaco, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v. O'Neill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v. O'Neill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Danielle W. v. Jentsch & Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- 76-82 St. Marks, LLC v. Gluck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Collazo v. New York City Department of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Altman v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- 32nd Avenue LLC v. Angelo Holding Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- 126 Newton St., LLC v. Allbrand Commercial Windows & Doors, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Alberto v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Alberto v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Nacherlilla v. Prospect Park Alliance, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Torres v. McCormick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Termine v. Continental Baking Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Amores v. 37-06 81st Street Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Rosario v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Woroniecki v. Tzitzikalakis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Texaco, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated December 7, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Texaco, Inc.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he fell at a construction site on December 22, 1990. He commenced this action against, inter alia, the appellant Texaco, Inc. (hereinafter Texaco), alleging that it owned, controlled, and operated the premises where he fell or that it leased the premises to the codefendants. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Texaco produced a deed dated October 28, 1985, evidencing that it had conveyed the premises prior to the accident. In opposition to Texaco’s motion, the plaintiff claimed that the deed had not been recorded and that Texaco was the last owner of record of the property.
The failure to record the deed does not preclude Texaco from denying ownership of the property. The applicable statute relating to the recording of deeds, Real Property Law § 291, was designed to protect the rights of innocent purchasers. The plaintiff is not a member of the class for which the statute was designed (see, Abbott v City of New York, 207 AD2d 853).
The plaintiff contends that Texaco’s failure to respond to a request to admit amounted to an admission on the crucial issue of ownership and control. Generally, a failure to answer a request to admit is deemed an admission (see, CPLR 3123; Blair
Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any material issues of fact, Texaco is entitled to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.