Cataudella v. 17 John Street Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cataudella v. 17 John Street Associates, LLC

140 A.D.3d 508, 35 N.Y.S.3d 917

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

DecidedJune 16, 2016

Docket1185 158173/12

StatusPublished

Cited by223 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 508 (Cataudella v. 17 John Street Associates, LLC) 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

Cataudella v. 17 John Street Associates, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 508, 35 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 17, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Big Tom Inc./ The Irish American’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for spoliation sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint, as defendant satisfied its initial burden on summary judgment by establishing, prima facie, that any alleged defect in the stairway at issue and/or in its premises lighting was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating his accident and injuries to either.

The court properly declined to consider the errata sheet even though it was timely served, because plaintiff made changes to his testimony without explaining why he was making them, as required by CPLR 3116 (a) (see Garcia v Stickel, 37 AD3d 368 [1st Dept 2007]).

*509 The court also properly denied the cross motion for spoliation sanctions. Plaintiff failed to specify a particular defect that caused him to fall, and even if defendant should have maintained its video footage of the subject staircase, plaintiff cannot establish that the failure to preserve it left him “prejudicially bereft of appropriate means to [present] a claim with incisive evidence,” as required for the imposition of sanctions (Masciotta v Morse Diesel Intl., 303 AD2d 309, 313 [1st Dept 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gunzburg v Quality Bldg. Servs. Corp., 137 AD3d 424, 424-425 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 17, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Big Tom Inc./ The Irish American’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for spoliation sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint, as defendant satisfied its initial burden on summary judgment by establishing, prima facie, that any alleged defect in the stairway at issue and/or in its premises lighting was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating his accident and injuries to either.

The court properly declined to consider the errata sheet even though it was timely served, because plaintiff made changes to his testimony without explaining why he was making them, as required by CPLR 3116 (a) (see Garcia v Stickel, 37 AD3d 368 [1st Dept 2007]).

*509 The court also properly denied the cross motion for spoliation sanctions. Plaintiff failed to specify a particular defect that caused him to fall, and even if defendant should have maintained its video footage of the subject staircase, plaintiff cannot establish that the failure to preserve it left him “prejudicially bereft of appropriate means to [present] a claim with incisive evidence,” as required for the imposition of sanctions (Masciotta v Morse Diesel Intl., 303 AD2d 309, 313 [1st Dept 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gunzburg v Quality Bldg. Servs. Corp., 137 AD3d 424, 424-425 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 508, 35 N.Y.S.3d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cataudella-v-17-john-street-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack