Drillings v. Beth Israel Medical Center

200 A.D.2d 381, 606 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 6, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 381 (Drillings v. Beth Israel Medical Center) 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
Drillings v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 200 A.D.2d 381, 606 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme [382]*382Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered June 16, 1993, which granted plaintiffs motion deemed as one for "reargument,” and upon reargument adhered to its prior determination granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of same court and Justice, entered January 14, 1993, unanimously dismissed as superseded, without costs.

Since the only evidence regarding the condition of the floor upon which plaintiff allegedly fell, on the date of the incident, establishes that the floor was shiny as "always,” summary judgment was properly granted. (See, Silver v Brodsky, 112 AD2d 213.) Indeed, even considering the expert’s affidavit, which was based on an examination of the floor (see, CPLR 3120) some two years after the incident, the evidence is wholly conclusory and fails to establish that a hazardous condition existed on the day of the incident or that defendants had any notice, actual or constructive, of the alleged hazardous condition (see, e.g., Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836).

Finally, plaintiffs motion to renew and reargue was correctly determined to be only a motion to reargue, in light of the fact that the alleged "new” evidence was within plaintiffs knowledge at the time of the initial motion for summary judgment (see, McFadden v Long Is. R. R., 115 AD2d 644). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Winkler v. Sherman
137 A.D.3d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lal v. Ching Po Ng
33 A.D.3d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ciccarelli v. Cotira, Inc.
24 A.D.3d 1276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
McGarvey v. Bank of New York
7 A.D.3d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Mroz v. Ella Corp.
262 A.D.2d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Kruimer v. National Cleaning Contractors, Inc.
256 A.D.2d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Santo v. Astor Court Owners Corp.
248 A.D.2d 267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Figueroa v. Haven Plaza Housing Development Fund Co.
247 A.D.2d 210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Madden v. New York Hospital
235 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Duffy v. Universal Maintenance Corp.
227 A.D.2d 238 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Mankowski v. Two Park Co.
225 A.D.2d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Thomas v. Caldor's
224 A.D.2d 171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 A.D.2d 381, 606 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drillings-v-beth-israel-medical-center-nyappdiv-1994.