Ingles v. Architron Designers & Builders, Inc.

136 A.D.3d 605, 25 N.Y.S.3d 603
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 25, 2016
Docket335 303373/07
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 605 (Ingles v. Architron Designers & Builders, Inc.) 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
Ingles v. Architron Designers & Builders, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 605, 25 N.Y.S.3d 603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered October 15, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on a defective roadway in front of buildings located at 330 and 340 W. 28th Street, in Manhattan. Defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not perform any work at the location of plaintiff’s alleged fall, by submitting, among other things, the affidavit of its vice president, who asserted that the work was performed in front of 360 W. 28th Street, and did not extend to the location where plaintiff allegedly fell (see Melcher v City of New York, 38 AD3d 376, 377 [1st Dept 2007]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The permits issued to defendant allowing it to pave a maximum of 100 feet of roadway do not raise an issue of fact as to whether it actually paved that amount or whether the work it performed encompassed the area of plaintiff’s fall (see Bermudez v City of New York, 21 AD3d 258 [1st Dept 2005]). Further, the affidavit of defendant’s vice president does not contradict his deposition testimony.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

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

Related

Frame v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 31096(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Zatizabal v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 05505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Vega v. City of New York
2021 NY Slip Op 02375 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Merrill v. City of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 3672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 605, 25 N.Y.S.3d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingles-v-architron-designers-builders-inc-nyappdiv-2016.