Diaz v. 1100 Wyatt LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. 1100 Wyatt LLC

99 A.D.3d 532, 951 N.Y.2d 869

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 532 (Diaz v. 1100 Wyatt 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

Diaz v. 1100 Wyatt LLC, 99 A.D.3d 532, 951 N.Y.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Elaintiff testified at his deposition that he tripped in front of defendant’s premises when his foot went into a crack or hole in the sidewalk. He did not see the crack until he was shown a picture of the area, but he felt it with his foot when he fell. Despite never seeing the crack or hole at the time of the accident, plaintiff attributed his fall to that condition. Thus, defendant did not sustain its burden of demonstrating, in the first instance, that the alleged sidewalk defect was not the cause of plaintiffs fall (see Tiles v City of New York, 262 AD2d 174 [1st Dept 1999]; see also Clark v Jay Realty Corp., 94 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]).

Even if defendant met its burden, plaintiff raised an issue of fact by submitting, among other things, the deposition testimony of defendant’s employee, who identified the area of the fall from a photograph and testified that the crack shown in the photograph was present on the day of the accident. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Elaintiff testified at his deposition that he tripped in front of defendant’s premises when his foot went into a crack or hole in the sidewalk. He did not see the crack until he was shown a picture of the area, but he felt it with his foot when he fell. Despite never seeing the crack or hole at the time of the accident, plaintiff attributed his fall to that condition. Thus, defendant did not sustain its burden of demonstrating, in the first instance, that the alleged sidewalk defect was not the cause of plaintiffs fall (see Tiles v City of New York, 262 AD2d 174 [1st Dept 1999]; see also Clark v Jay Realty Corp., 94 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2012]).

Even if defendant met its burden, plaintiff raised an issue of fact by submitting, among other things, the deposition testimony of defendant’s employee, who identified the area of the fall from a photograph and testified that the crack shown in the photograph was present on the day of the accident. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 532, 951 N.Y.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-1100-wyatt-llc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack