Barraillier v. City of New York

12 A.D.3d 168, 784 N.Y.S.2d 55, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 4, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 168 (Barraillier v. City of New York) 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
Barraillier v. City of New York, 12 A.D.3d 168, 784 N.Y.S.2d 55, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J), entered April 9, 2004, which denied defendant Bovis Lend Lease LMB’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[169]*169Bovis failed to establish that there were no issues of fact concerning its contract to perform or supervise any construction work in the area where plaintiff tripped and fell (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Bovis did not set forth a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment because the supporting affidavit of its executive vice-president did not indicate the sources (e.g., documents he may have searched or reviewed, or persons he consulted) of his familiarity with the construction project at issue, or the company’s purported lack of involvement with same (Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp., 126 AD2d 477, 479 [1987]; compare Piccinich v New York Stock Exch., 257 AD2d 438, 439 [1999]). Furthermore, the affidavit was insufficient because the officer claimed that Bovis did not have a project at the accident location on July 4, 2002, when, in fact, plaintiff asserted in her complaint that the accident took place on July 24 of that year.

The motion court properly ruled that the parties were entitled to depose Bovis and review the work records over which it had exclusive control (see Gaughan v Chase Manhattan Bank, 204 AD2d 67 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Related

K - Detailing, Inc. v. N & C Ironworks, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33588(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Gould
2019 NY Slip Op 3266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Auto Mkt. of Jamaica, N.Y.
133 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
2132 Presidential Assets, LLC v. Carrasquillo
39 Misc. 3d 756 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2013)
Arias v. Skyline Windows, Inc.
89 A.D.3d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 168, 784 N.Y.S.2d 55, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barraillier-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.