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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

192 A.D.2d 322 (Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Acevedo v. York International Corp.
31 A.D.3d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Rancano v. Chase Manhattan Bank
273 A.D.2d 51 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)