Ackerman v. Iskhakov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ackerman v. Iskhakov

139 A.D.3d 987, 30 N.Y.S.3d 850

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 25, 2016

Docket2015-04430

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 987 (Ackerman v. Iskhakov) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ackerman v. Iskhakov, 139 A.D.3d 987, 30 N.Y.S.3d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*988 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated March 18, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Toba Faigi Ackerman (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell while ascending the exterior cement front steps of the defendants’ home. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056 [2015]; Grossi v Ralph Aievoli & Son, Inc., 125 AD3d 803, 804 [2015]; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 106 AD3d 972 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The injured plaintiff’s affidavit, which was submitted in opposition to the motion, failed to raise a triable issue of fact since it presented what appear to be feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony (see Bryant v Loft Bookstore Café, LLC, 138 AD3d 664 [2016]; Zhu v Natale, 131 AD3d 607, 608 [2015]; Viviano v KeyCorp, 128 AD3d 811, 812 [2015]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*988 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated March 18, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Toba Faigi Ackerman (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell while ascending the exterior cement front steps of the defendants’ home. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056 [2015]; Grossi v Ralph Aievoli & Son, Inc., 125 AD3d 803, 804 [2015]; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 106 AD3d 972 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The injured plaintiff’s affidavit, which was submitted in opposition to the motion, failed to raise a triable issue of fact since it presented what appear to be feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony (see Bryant v Loft Bookstore Café, LLC, 138 AD3d 664 [2016]; Zhu v Natale, 131 AD3d 607, 608 [2015]; Viviano v KeyCorp, 128 AD3d 811, 812 [2015]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 987, 30 N.Y.S.3d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackerman-v-iskhakov-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack