Legal Opinion
Steenwerth v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 16, 2000PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused by the dangerous condition of defendant’s front step. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Contrary to the contention of defendant, it failed to establish that the condition of the front step was not dangerous. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did not have actual or…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Morgan v. GenrichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Crawford v. MarcelloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Sumell v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pelow v. Tri-Main DevelopmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Rivers v. May Department Stores Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Gentile v. University of Rochester Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Dolinar v. Kaleida HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Gonzalez v. PadinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.