Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority

192 A.D.2d 322, 595 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 322 (Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority, 192 A.D.2d 322, 595 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered August 13, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs

Plaintiff’s failure to supply the name of a notice witness was inadvertent, and defendant is not prejudiced because it has been given a further opportunity to depose plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need to preclude introduction of the witness’ testimony at trial.

Summary judgment was properly denied since the witness’ affidavit concerning the substance that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall created a triable issue as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered August 13, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs

Plaintiff’s failure to supply the name of a notice witness was inadvertent, and defendant is not prejudiced because it has been given a further opportunity to depose plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need to preclude introduction of the witness’ testimony at trial.

Summary judgment was properly denied since the witness’ affidavit concerning the substance that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall created a triable issue as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 322, 595 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack