Enisa Zanki v Gerald K. Cahill

Zanki v Cahill 2004 NY Slip Op 03715 [2 NY3d 783] May 11, 2004 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 11, 2004

[*1] Enisa Zanki et al., Appellants,
v
Gerald K. Cahill et al., Defendants, and Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. California JKC Properties, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Decided May 11, 2004

Zanki v Cahill, 2 AD3d 197, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert A. Skoblar, New York City, for appellants.

Wilson, Bave, Conboy, Cozza & Couzens, P.C., White Plains (James A. Rogers of counsel), for defendant, third-party plaintiff-respondent and third-party defendant- respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

The Appellate Division properly determined that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the alleged injuries resulted from a dangerous recurring condition of which defendant Cushman & Wakefield had actual or constructive notice.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.