Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Do Espirito Santo v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 16, 2000

185 Misc. 2d 517; 716 N.Y.S.2d 549; 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 398

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Joseph A. Oliva of counsel), for appellant. Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathleen Alberton of counsel), for City of New York and another, respondents.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered June 14, 1999 reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The clerk is directed to *518enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint as against it.

The hazard to which plaintiff attributes her fall and injury, an uneven and “uplift [ed]” exterior step on premises owned by defendant-appellant, is not alleged or shown to constitute a defect violative of any specific statutory safety provision (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). No basis is shown, therefore, to impose liability upon defendant, an out-of-possession owner which had relinquished control over the premises years before the occurrence of plaintiffs injury (supra; Gomez v Walton Realty Assocs., 258 AD2d 307).

Parness, P. J., McCooe and Gangel-Jacob, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.