1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 59 A.D.3d
  5. 59 A.D.3d 280 (2009)
 

LEE v. KING

59 A.D.3d 280 (2009)

873 N.Y.S.2d 303

TIMOTHY LEE, Respondent, v. BURGER KING et al., Respondents-Appellants, and 101 EAST 161ST STREET RESTAURANT CORP., et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided February 19, 2009.

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 A.D.2d 240 [2002]). In any event, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases