Case Name: 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
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2004-05-11
Citations: 2 N.Y. 783
Docket Number: 
Parties: 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
[812 NE2d 1257, 780 NYS2d 307]
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
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert A. Skoblar, New York City, for appellants.
Wilson, Bave, Conboy, Cozza & Couzens, P.C., White Plains 0James A. Rogers of counsel), for defendant, third-party plaintiff-respondent and third-party defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
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.