Personius v Mann
2005 NYSlipOp 08768
November 17, 2005
Court of Appeals
As corrected through Wednesday, January 25, 2006


[*1]
Hugh Personius et al., Appellants,
v
John G. Mann et al., Respondents.

Decided November 17, 2005

Personius v Mann, 20 AD3d 616, modified.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Learned, Reilly & Learned, LLP, Elmira (Diana L. Hughes of counsel), for appellants.

Costello Cooney & Fearon PLLC, Syracuse (Samuel C. Young of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, with costs to plaintiffs, by denying defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the negligence cause of action and, as so modified, affirmed. A question of fact existed as to whether defendants fulfilled their duty to inspect and maintain the pole in question.

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


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.