Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ortiz v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 21, 2011Published

1DissentDeGrasse, J.

I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant permitted a dangerous condition to exist on its premises. While riding her scooter on a walkway, the infant plaintiff was struck by an unsecured gate that was being used by another child as a swing. Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that there was an “ongoing, recurrent hazardous condition of children swinging on the gate which existed for at least one year” prior to the accident. The majority correctly recognizes that an unlocked gate is not inherently dangerous.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kurshals v. Connetquot Central School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  2. Cuevas v. 73rd & Central Park West Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  3. Cuevas v. 73rd & Central Park West Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
  4. Barrett v. LuskAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API