NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
February 19, 2009
TIMOTHY LEE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
BURGER KING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, 101 EAST 161ST STREET RESTAURANT CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, STADIUM GROCERY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 10, 2008, which denied the motion of defendants 101 East 161st Street Restaurant Corp. and 101 Restaurant Corp. and the cross motion of Burger King, Burger King Corp. and Walton Foods Enterprises, L.L.C. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
Defendants did not demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment, since their conflicting evidence failed to establish their lack of responsibility for the alleged hazardous grease condition on the public sidewalk and since their argument that other possible sources for the condition existed was properly rejected (see Bowry v Uptown Gift Shop, 292 AD2d 240 ). In any event, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with evidence from which a jury could infer that one, or more, of defendants created the alleged hazardous condition (see Vazquez v Santana, 291 AD2d 230 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.