Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2010 |
| Citation | 72 A.D.3d 608,900 N.Y.S.2d 44 |
| Parties | Lisa HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IG GREENPOINT CORP., Defendant-Appellant, The China Club Late Night Management, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Arnold Di Joseph III, New York, for Lisa Harris, appellant.
The Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Shein & Associates, P.C., Syosset (Charles R. Strugatz of counsel), for IG Greenpoint Corp., appellant.
Zaremba Brownell & Brown PLLC, New York (Daniel T. Gluck of counsel), for respondents.
SAXE, J.P., CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, ABDUS-SALAAM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 20, 2008, which granted the motion by defendants The China Club Late Night Management, Inc. and Nightlife Enterprises, L.P. (collectively, China Club) to dismiss the complaint and cross claims as against them, unanimously reversed, onthe law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint and cross claims reinstated.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 26, 2006, she tripped and fell on a "defect and/or tripping hazard" in the sidewalk approximately 15-18 inches from the curb line outside the entrance to the nightclub owned and managed by China Club. China Club leases the premises from defendant IG Greenpoint Corp. Plaintiff further asserts, based on personal knowledge, that China Club used the sidewalk for entrance, egress and the congregation of patrons and that it cordoned off a portion of the sidewalk using heavy metal stanchions. Plaintiff argues that the hazardous and defective cracks in issue emanated from the exact locations on the sidewalk where the stanchions were set out each night by China Club and that it was the nightly dragging and dropping of the stanchions that caused the damage to the sidewalk.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state acause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the factual allegations of the complaint must be deemed to be true, and the court must afford the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint ( see Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 86 N.Y.2d 307, 318, 631 N.Y.S.2d 565, 655 N.E.2d 661 [1995]; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994]; Johnson v. Kings County Dist. Attorney's Off., 308 A.D.2d 278, 284, 763 N.Y.S.2d 635 [2003] ). The motion must be denied where the complaint adequately alleges, for pleading survival purposes, viable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Otero v. Hous. St. Owners Corp.
...720 (2007); Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY, 98 N.Y.2d at 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190;Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp., 72 A.D.3d 608, 609, 900 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1st Dep't 2010); Vig v. New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140, 144–45, 885 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1st Dep't 2009). In short, ......
-
Artis v. Random House, Inc.
...720 (2007); Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY, 98 N.Y.2d at 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190; Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp., 72 A.D.3d 608, 609, 900 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1st Dep't 2010); Vig v. New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140, 144–45, 885 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1st Dep't 2009). The appli......
-
Clark v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...fail to state a claim. Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 (1994) ; Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp., 72 A.D.3d 608, 609, 900 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1st Dep't 2010) ; Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 A.D.2d 118, 121, 741 N.Y.S.2d 9 (1st Dep't 2002). Dismissal of a cla......
-
Kastner v. MacLean
...v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 827 (2007); Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d at 326; Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp., 72 A.D.3d 608, 609 (1st Dep't 2010); Vig v. New York Hairspray Co.. L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140, 144-45 (1st Dep't 2009) . In short, the court may dismiss a claim ......