Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou
Decision Date | 27 November 1995 |
Citation | 221 A.D.2d 594,634 N.Y.S.2d 501 |
Parties | Despina HOTZOGLOU, Respondent, v. Nick HOTZOGLOU, et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Galvano & Xanthakis, New York City (Anthony Xanthakis, of counsel), for appellants.
John N. Spiridakis, Long Island City (Steven Hoffman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, MILLER and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated July 6, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff slipped and fell, sustaining physical injuries, while descending an exterior staircase at the defendants' home. Contrary to the defendants' contention, issues of fact exist which preclude an award of summary judgment. There is evidence in the record that the defendants were aware that the staircase was in a dilapidated condition and that it became slippery in the rain. Moreover, the defendants acknowledged that the exterior staircase did not have a handrail, and they did not establish, as a matter of law, that their home is exempt from the applicable building ordinances that require one (see, Orlick v. Granit Hotel & Country Club, 30 N.Y.2d 246, 331 N.Y.S.2d 651, 282 N.E.2d 610; Major v. Waverly & Ogden, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 332, 197 N.Y.S.2d 165, 165 N.E.2d 181; Eidlitz v. Village of Dobbs Ferry, 97 A.D.2d 747, 468 N.Y.S.2d 585; Lattimore v. Falcone, 35 A.D.2d 1069, 316 N.Y.S.2d 363). Indeed, " (Lattimore v. Falcone, supra, at 1069). Since summary judgment should not be awarded when, as here, there are genuine issues of material fact (see, Museums at Stony Brook v. Village of Patchogue Fire Dept., 146 A.D.2d 572, 536 N.Y.S.2d 177), the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milan v. Yonkers Raceway Corp.
...City Tr. Auth., 14 A.D.3d 685, 686, 789 N.Y.S.2d 236 ; cf. Scala v. Scala, 31 A.D.3d 423, 425, 818 N.Y.S.2d 151 ; Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou, 221 A.D.2d 594, 594, 634 N.Y.S.2d 501 ; Portilla v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 631, 631, 578 N.Y.S.2d 241 ).The plaintiff's remaining contention is without me......
-
Sanchez v. Irun
...stairway ( see Pappalardo v. New York Health and Racquet Club, 279 A.D.2d 134, 139–140, 718 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2000]; Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou, 221 A.D.2d 594, 634 N.Y.S.2d 501 [2004] ). Additionally, plaintiff testified that, as she fell, she reached for a handrail, which was not there. Thus, iss......
-
Stancarone v. Sullivan
...on the steps was not a hazardous condition that may have been a proximate cause of the injuries (see generally Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou, 221 A.D.2d 594, 594, 634 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). Moreover, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the defendants' motion which w......
-
Brice v. Vermeulen
...13th St. Owners, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 456, 456–457, 794 N.Y.S.2d 446; Viscusi v. Fenner, 10 A.D.3d 361, 781 N.Y.S.2d 121; Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou, 221 A.D.2d 594, 634 N.Y.S.2d 501; Lattimore v. Falcone, 35 A.D.2d 1069, 316 N.Y.S.2d 363). Contrary to the appellants' contention, their reliance on t......