New York Court of Appeals, 2009

Verizon New York, Inc. v. Garvin

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 24, 2009 · Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur

13 N.Y.3d 851; 891 N.Y.S.2d 686; 920 N.E.2d 90

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Stevens & Thompson Paper Co. Inc. v. Middle Falls Fire Dept., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
UTICA NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP v. OUR TOUCH, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Utica National Insurance Group v. Our Touch, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Utica National Insurance Group v. Our Touch, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Bowles v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
BULLUCK, TYLER v. FIELDS, MARYANNE E. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Rosenblatt v. St. George Health & Racquetball Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Rosenblatt v. St. George Health & Racquetball Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendant landowner was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Verizon New York, Inc. for property damages arising from a fire that originated on defendant’s premises. Defendant came forward with evidence that, less than a year before the fire, he installed smoke detectors that were inspected and deemed operable by a municipal inspector, contradicting plaintiff’s claim that he negligently failed to install or maintain smoke detectors. In response, plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact by submitting proof in admissible form that the smoke detectors did not work on the day of the fire or that, prior to the incident, defendant had actual or constructive notice that they were not operable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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