Israel v. Fairharbor Owners, Inc.

20 A.D.3d 392, 798 N.Y.S.2d 139
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 5, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 392 (Israel v. Fairharbor Owners, 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
Israel v. Fairharbor Owners, Inc., 20 A.D.3d 392, 798 N.Y.S.2d 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 29, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Joan Israel (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured when she fell on a walkway in the apartment complex owned and maintained by the defendants. The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed that she did not know what caused her to fall until she was shown a defective area of the walkway by two residents of the apartment complex after the accident occurred, who did not witness the accident (see Sanchez v City of New York, 305 AD2d 487 [2003]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]; Novoni v La Parma Corp., 278 AD2d 393 [2000]; Barretta v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 278 AD2d 262, 263 [2000]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion was tailored to raise a triable issue of fact and merely raised a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of the plaintiffs earlier admissions (see Sanchez v City of New York, supra; Lara v Saint John’s Univ., 289 AD2d 457 [2001]; Novoni v La Parma Corp., supra; Barretta v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, supra at 263). H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mallen v. Dekalb Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 1609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Bartels v. Eack
2018 NY Slip Op 5995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Bryant v. Loft Bookstore Café, LLC
138 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Blocker v. Filene's Basement 51-00540
126 A.D.3d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Douse v. City of New York
70 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Morales v. Morales
55 A.D.3d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Payne v. 100 Motor Parkway Associates, LLC
45 A.D.3d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Gomez v. Rodriguez
31 A.D.3d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
LeBron v. H.E.L.P. I of New York
30 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Shapiro v. Munoz
28 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Irizarry v. Rose Bloch 107 University Place Partnership
12 Misc. 3d 733 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Fishelberg v. Emmons Avenue Hospitality Corp.
26 A.D.3d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Enamorado v. KHR Holding Co., LLC
24 A.D.3d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.3d 392, 798 N.Y.S.2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/israel-v-fairharbor-owners-inc-nyappdiv-2005.